GLM 5 vs Qwen3.5-9B
GLM 5 leads Qwen3.5-9B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.9 to 13.3, and Qwen3.5-9B costs 21.3x less per output token ($0.15 vs $3.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.
GLM 5 or Qwen3.5-9B: which to pick
Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-9B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen3.5-9B for output tokens 21.3x cheaper ($0.15 vs $3.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).
- Shared results
- 11
- GLM 5 only
- 65
- Qwen3.5-9B only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GLM 5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5
GLM 5 leads, 27.9 against 13.3.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GLM 5 has a GPQA Diamond result, 83.3%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GLM 5 has a AIME result, 91.7%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GLM 5 has a MMLU Pro result, 86.0%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GLM 5 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1247.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B takes 262K tokens against 205K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B
GLM 5 $0.0026, Qwen3.5-9B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GLM 5 has the number, $0.63.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 5 41.7 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.5-9B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Coding, 31.1 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Terminal-Bench: GLM 5 52.4% against Qwen3.5-9B 9.2%, 43.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 5 $3.20 against Qwen3.5-9B $0.15 per million output tokens, 21.3x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 5 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.5-9B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GLM 5 | Bars | Qwen3.5-9B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| Math | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 11 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 23.5 | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 81.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 23.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 29.5% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 43.2% | 24.2% | GLM 5 |
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | 9.2% | GLM 5 |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 765.6 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1461 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1460 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1424 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1450 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 27.9 | 13.3 | GLM 5 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.8 | 139.3 | GLM 5 |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1123 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1136 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1146 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1144 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1148 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 98.2% | 86.8% | GLM 5 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $4,432 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 82.0% | 80.6% | GLM 5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 29.3% | 14.9% | GLM 5 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 87.8% | 79.0% | GLM 5 |
| ARC-AGI | 44.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1452 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1454 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1460 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 91.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 80.0% | 61.7% | GLM 5 |
| LMArena Text: math | 1440 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1451 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 52.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 62.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 70.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 94.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1460 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1455 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1453 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1430 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1247 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1230 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1234 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1228 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1229 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1246 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1168 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1147 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 72.3% | 66.7% | GLM 5 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 75.7% | 70.0% | GLM 5 |
| DTBench | Not measured | 71.2% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 24.5% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1446 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1428 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1438 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1458 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1430 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1511 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1447 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1416 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1423 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1456 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1454 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1436 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1434 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1456 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1446 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1437 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1426 | Not measured | Only GLM 5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 5 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | February 11, 2026 | March 10, 2026 |
| Context window | 205K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.00 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $3.20 | $0.15 |
| Coding index | 41.7 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 3 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.63 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 5 better than Qwen3.5-9B for coding?
Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-9B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.5-9B for output tokens 21.3x cheaper ($0.15 vs $3.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).
Which is cheaper, GLM 5 or Qwen3.5-9B?
GLM 5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 or Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B, with 262K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 vs Qwen3.5-9B comparison based on?
11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-9B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.