Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20

GLM 5 leads Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 on coding, 41.7 to 39.5 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 costs 1.8x less per output token ($1.80 vs $3.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 16 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5Z.ai
Coding
41.7
Overall
54.3
Output $/M
$3.20
6
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Qwen
Coding
39.5
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.80
10
vs boards won of 16 shared

GLM 5 or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20: which to pick

Pick GLM 5 for coding: it scores 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 39.5 for Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20.

Pick Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($1.80 vs $3.20 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Shared results
16
GLM 5 only
60
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 only
9
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5 41.7 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 39.5 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 27.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Vending-Bench 2: GLM 5 $4,432 against Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 $1, 27.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5 $3.20 against Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 $1.80 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
Context window
GLM 5 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 1M.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5BarsQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Ties
Coding31
Intelligence01
Agentic work10
Reasoning11
Math11
Knowledge05
General01
All shared boards610
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index31
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev1435Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.9%85.3%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)71.4%71.2%GLM 5
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)23.4%15.7%GLM 5
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench52.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
WeirdML48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ALE-Bench765.6608.9GLM 5
LMArena Text: coding1461Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1424Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1450Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
AA Intelligence Index27.9Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8146.2Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1123Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1136Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1147Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1144Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1098Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom98.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Vending-Bench 2$4,432$1GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
GPQA Diamond83.3%87.4%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured22.8%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.8%84.8%GLM 5
ARC-AGI44.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SimpleBench53.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured8.0%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1452Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: expert1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark75.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Math benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
AIME91.7%86.0%GLM 5
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%86.7%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
LMArena Text: math1440Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1451Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
MMLU Pro86.0%87.2%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%85.1%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.5%59.7%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
CorpFin (Vals AI)62.9%65.3%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
TaxEval (Vals AI)70.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured60.8%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)94.3%95.2%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured25.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMArena Text: science1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1453Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1430Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
Design Arena: websites1247Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1227Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1234Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1228Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1228Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1246Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1168Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1147Not measuredOnly 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 index01
General benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured30.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
IFBench72.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)75.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
DTBenchNot measured80.5%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMCANot measured36.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
CL-bench18.7%19.8%Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
CL-bench LifeNot measured12.4%Only Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 measured
LMArena Text1446Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1428Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1438Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: English1458Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1430Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1511Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: German1447Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1416Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1423Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: French1456Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1454Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1436Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1434Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1456Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1446Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1437Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1426Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20Leader
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

GLM 5$0.0026Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20$0.0012Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5$0.060Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20$0.020Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5$0.232Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20$0.078Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 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.

Specifications of GLM 5 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedFebruary 11, 2026April 27, 2026
Context window205K1M
Input $/Mtok$1.00$0.30
Output $/Mtok$3.20$1.80
Coding index41.739.5
Independent measurements behind it32
Cost per solved task$0.63$1.35
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5 better than Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 for coding?

Pick GLM 5 for coding: it scores 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 39.5 for Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20. Pick Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($1.80 vs $3.20 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5 or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20?

GLM 5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 costs $0.30 and $1.80. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5 costs $0.63 and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 $1.35.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 or Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20?

Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20 comparison based on?

16 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-5-vs-qwen3-5-plus-20260420" title="GLM 5 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-5-vs-qwen3-5-plus-20260420">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 5 vs Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20</a></p>