Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

GLM 5 leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.9 to 18.2, and Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs 3.2x less per output token ($1.00 vs $3.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 12 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5Z.ai
Coding
41.7
Overall
54.3
Output $/M
$3.20
10
Qwen3.6 35B A3BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
45.0
Output $/M
$1.00
2
vs boards won of 12 shared

GLM 5 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick

Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 3.2x cheaper ($1.00 vs $3.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Shared results
12
GLM 5 only
64
Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
8
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.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5 41.7 from 3 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 16.6 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Terminal-Bench: GLM 5 52.4% against Qwen3.6 35B A3B 24.6%, 27.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5 $3.20 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 3.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 5 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5BarsQwen3.6 35B A3BTies
Coding30
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning21
Math01
General20
All shared boards102
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev1435Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured41.9Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)71.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)23.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SciCodeNot measured36.6%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%34.8%GLM 5
Terminal-Bench52.4%24.6%GLM 5
WeirdML48.2%34.5%GLM 5
ALE-Bench765.6Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
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 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence Index27.918.2GLM 5
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8143.7GLM 5
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured13.1Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
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%95.3%GLM 5
Vending-Bench 2$4,432Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
GPQA Diamond83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.0%84.1%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.3%22.2%GLM 5
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
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured22.0%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AIME91.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%86.7%Qwen3.6 35B A3B
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured20.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
LMArena Text: math1440Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1451Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
MMLU Pro86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)62.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)70.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)94.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 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 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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 index20
General benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
IFBench72.3%64.4%GLM 5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)75.7%71.7%GLM 5
DTBenchNot measured73.9%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
LMCANot measured29.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
CL-bench18.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured44.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkGLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0006Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5$0.060Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0080Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5$0.232Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.030Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5Qwen3.6 35B A3B
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 11, 2026April 27, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.00$0.10
Output $/Mtok$3.20$1.00
Coding index41.7Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.63Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5 better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?

Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 3.2x cheaper ($1.00 vs $3.20 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

GLM 5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B comparison based on?

12 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next