Skip to content

Qwen3.7 Max vs GLM 5.2

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

40#313
vs
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69#136
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalQwen3.7 MaxDeltaGLM 5.2
Capabilities
67
--
67
Pricing
96
+3
93
Context window size
95
0
96
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
82
-14
96
Benchmarks
0
-69
69
Overall Result
1 wins
of 6
3 wins
GLM 5.2 wins 3 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (24 data points)
Qwen3.7 MaxGLM 5.2
Qwen3.7 Max

40

current score

Leader

GLM 5.2

right now

GLM 5.2

68.9

current score

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

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

Per request$0.003688
Daily$12.29
Monthly$368.75
Annual$4425.00

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.003534
Daily$11.78
Monthly$353.41
Annual$4240.92

GLM 5.2 saves you $15.34/month

That's $184.08/year compared to Qwen3.7 Max at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

4% cheaper
Choose GLM 5.2 for cost optimization

Qwen3.7 Max pricing:
Input:$1.48/M tokens
Output:$4.42/M tokens
GLM 5.2 pricing:
Input:$0.03/M tokens
Output:$7.00/M tokens
Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

40

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

69

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricQwen3.7 MaxGLM 5.2Winner
Overall Score
40
69
GLM 5.2
Rank#313#136
GLM 5.2
Quality Rank#313#136
GLM 5.2
Adoption Rank#313#136
GLM 5.2
Parameters------
Context Window1000K1049K
GLM 5.2
Pricing$1.48/$4.42/M$0.03/$7.00/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
67
Qwen3.7 Max
Pricing
96
93
Qwen3.7 Max
Context window size
95
96
GLM 5.2
Recency
100
100
Qwen3.7 Max
Output Capacity
82
96
GLM 5.2
Benchmarks--
69
GLM 5.2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
Qwen3.7 Max: 0GLM 5.2: 0
Qwen3.7 Max
GLM 5.2
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
-86%
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.

Qwen3.7 MaxEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #313), placing it in the top -8% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5.2Competitive

Scores 69/100 (rank #136), placing it in the top 53% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

GLM 5.2 has a 29-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Qwen3.7 Max when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose GLM 5.2 when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Qwen3.7 Max
Input cost$1.48/M tokens
Output cost$4.42/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.148
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$88.50
GLM 5.2Best Value
Input cost$0.03/M tokens
Output cost$7.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.102
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$105.51

GLM 5.2 offers 16% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $88.50/month with Qwen3.7 Max vs $105.51/month with GLM 5.2 - a $17.01 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Qwen3.7 MaxFaster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5.2
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

Qwen3.7 Max

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Qwen3.7 Max also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Qwen3.7 Max

Long document analysis

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

GLM 5.2

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($4.42/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Qwen3.7 Max

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (69/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GLM 5.2
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 clearly outperforms Qwen3.7 Max with a significant 28.900000000000006-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5.2 is the stronger choice. However, Qwen3.7 Max may still excel in niche scenarios.

by Alibaba

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 16% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • 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
GLM 5.2
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityQwen3.7 MaxGLM 5.2
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

Best Value
$7.96
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

$8.46
estimated monthly cost

Qwen3.7 Max saves you $0.4964/month

That's 6% cheaper than GLM 5.2 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
ParameterQwen3.7 MaxGLM 5.2
Context Window1M1.0M
Max Output Tokens131,072943,718
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedMay 21, 2026Jun 16, 2026
Last updated: 50m ago

相关对比

Qwen3.7 Max vs GLM 5.2 (2026) | LM Market Cap