Skip to content

Qwen3.8 27B vs GLM Latest

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

40#261
vs
GLM Latest

~z-ai

40#259
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalQwen3.8 27BDeltaGLM Latest
Capabilities
83
+17
67
Pricing
98
0
99
Context window size
95
0
96
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
86
-10
96
Overall Result
1 wins
of 5
3 wins
GLM Latest wins 3 of 5 signals

Score History

Score History (13 data points)
Qwen3.8 27BGLM Latest
Qwen3.8 27B

40

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

GLM Latest

40

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

Per request$0.001087
Daily$3.63
Monthly$108.75
Annual$1305.00

GLM Latest

~z-ai

Best Value
Per request$0.000770
Daily$2.57
Monthly$76.99
Annual$923.88

GLM Latest saves you $31.76/month

That's $381.12/year compared to Qwen3.8 27B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

29% cheaper
Choose GLM Latest for cost optimization

Qwen3.8 27B pricing:
Input:$0.15/M tokens
Output:$1.88/M tokens
GLM Latest pricing:
Input:$0.07/M tokens
Output:$1.40/M tokens
Tie
Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

40

Composite Score

Tie
GLM Latest

~z-ai

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricQwen3.8 27BGLM LatestWinner
Overall Score
40
40
--
Rank#261#259
GLM Latest
Quality Rank#261#259
GLM Latest
Adoption Rank#261#259
GLM Latest
Parameters27B----
Context Window1024K1049K
GLM Latest
Pricing$0.15/$1.88/M$0.07/$1.40/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
83
67
Qwen3.8 27B
Pricing
98
99
GLM Latest
Context window size
95
96
GLM Latest
Recency
100
100
Qwen3.8 27B
Output Capacity
86
96
GLM Latest
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Qwen3.8 27BEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #261), placing it in the top 10% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM LatestEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #259), placing it in the top 11% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Qwen3.8 27B when you need:

  • Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose GLM Latest when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Cost-Performance Analysis
Qwen3.8 27B
Input cost$0.15/M tokens
Output cost$1.88/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.051
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$30.38
GLM LatestBest Value
Input cost$0.07/M tokens
Output cost$1.40/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.037
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$22.05

GLM Latest offers 27% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $22.05/month with GLM Latest vs $30.38/month with Qwen3.8 27B - a $8.33 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Qwen3.8 27BFaster
Speed score0/100
GLM Latest
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Qwen3.8 27B

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM Latest also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Qwen3.8 27B

Long document analysis

Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

GLM Latest

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($1.40/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM Latest

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Qwen3.8 27B

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Qwen3.8 27B
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B and GLM Latest are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Qwen3.8 27B
Recommended

by Alibaba

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by ~z-ai

  • Choose for Cost - 27% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityQwen3.8 27BGLM Latest
Vision (Image Input)differs
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

$2.52
estimated monthly cost

GLM Latest

~z-ai

Best Value
$1.81
estimated monthly cost

GLM Latest saves you $0.7142/month

That's 28% cheaper than Qwen3.8 27B at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterQwen3.8 27BGLM Latest
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Max Output Tokens235,929943,718
Open SourceYesNo
CreatedAug 14, 2026Aug 19, 2026
Last updated: 2m ago

相关对比

Qwen3.8 27B vs GLM Latest (2026) | LM Market Cap