Skip to content

Qwen3 Max vs GLM 5.2

Qwen3 Max

Alibaba

67#128
vs
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

79#68
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalQwen3 MaxDeltaGLM 5.2
Capabilities
50
-17
67
Benchmarks
69
-12
81
Pricing
96
-2
98
Context window size
86
-9
96
Recency
77
-23
100
Output Capacity
75
-10
85
Overall Result
0 wins
of 6
6 wins
GLM 5.2 wins 6 of 6 signals

Score History

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

67.4

current score

Leader

GLM 5.2

right now

GLM 5.2

78.5

current score

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

Qwen3 Max

Alibaba

Per request$0.002730
Daily$9.10
Monthly$273.00
Annual$3276.00

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.001883
Daily$6.28
Monthly$188.28
Annual$2259.36

GLM 5.2 saves you $84.72/month

That's $1016.64/year compared to Qwen3 Max at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

31% cheaper
Choose GLM 5.2 for cost optimization

Qwen3 Max pricing:
Input:$0.78/M tokens
Output:$3.90/M tokens
GLM 5.2 pricing:
Input:$0.73/M tokens
Output:$2.30/M tokens
Qwen3 Max

Alibaba

67

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

79

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricQwen3 MaxGLM 5.2Winner
Overall Score
67
79
GLM 5.2
Rank#128#68
GLM 5.2
Quality Rank#128#68
GLM 5.2
Adoption Rank#128#68
GLM 5.2
Parameters------
Context Window262K1049K
GLM 5.2
Pricing$0.78/$3.90/M$0.73/$2.30/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
50
67
GLM 5.2
Benchmarks
69
81
GLM 5.2
Pricing
96
98
GLM 5.2
Context window size
86
96
GLM 5.2
Recency
77
100
GLM 5.2
Output Capacity
75
85
GLM 5.2
Benchmark Head-to-Head(2 benchmarks)
Qwen3 Max: 0GLM 5.2: 1
Qwen3 Max
GLM 5.2
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
85.7%86%
Arena Elo
-1457
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 MaxCompetitive

Scores 67/100 (rank #128), placing it in the top 56% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5.2Strong Performer

Scores 79/100 (rank #68), placing it in the top 77% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

GLM 5.2 has a 11-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Qwen3 Max when you need:

  • Budget-friendly applications with moderate quality requirements

Choose GLM 5.2 when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Processing long documents or large codebases (1049K token context)
  • 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 Max
Input cost$0.78/M tokens
Output cost$3.90/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.069
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$70.20
GLM 5.2Best Value
Input cost$0.73/M tokens
Output cost$2.30/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.039
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$45.50

GLM 5.2 offers 35% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $45.50/month with GLM 5.2 vs $70.20/month with Qwen3 Max - a $24.70 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Qwen3 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 Max

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 5.2 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Qwen3 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 ($2.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 5.2

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (79/100) 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 Max with a significant 11.099999999999994-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5.2 is the stronger choice. However, Qwen3 Max may still excel in niche scenarios.

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
GLM 5.2
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Cost - 35% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityQwen3 MaxGLM 5.2
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoningdiffers
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Qwen3 Max

Alibaba

$6.08
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$4.08
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5.2 saves you $2.00/month

That's 33% cheaper than Qwen3 Max 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 MaxGLM 5.2
Context Window262K1.0M
Max Output Tokens32,768131,072
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedSep 23, 2025Jun 16, 2026
Last updated: just now

相关对比

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