| Signal | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | Delta | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | +17 | |
Benchmarks | 73 | -1 | |
Pricing | 98 | +1 | |
Context window size | 86 | +2 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 80 | -8 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
74.3
current score
Tied
right now
74.3
current score
Alibaba
Zhipu AI
Qwen3.5 397B A17B saves you $104.00/month
That's $1248.00/year compared to GLM 5.1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | GLM 5.1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 74 | 74 | -- |
| Rank | #51 | #50 | GLM 5.1 |
| Quality Rank | #51 | #50 | GLM 5.1 |
| Adoption Rank | #51 | #50 | GLM 5.1 |
| Parameters | 397B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 203K | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Pricing | $0.39/$2.34/M | $1.00/$3.20/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 67 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Benchmarks | 73 | 74 | GLM 5.1 |
| Pricing | 98 | 97 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Context window size | 86 | 84 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 88 | GLM 5.1 |
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.
Scores 74/100 (rank #51), placing it in the top 83% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 74/100 (rank #50), placing it in the top 83% of all 290 models tracked.
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.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B offers 35% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $40.95/month with Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs $63.00/month with GLM 5.1 - a $22.05 monthly difference.
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.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Qwen3.5 397B A17B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.34/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (74/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Qwen3.5 397B A17B and GLM 5.1 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.
Best for Quality
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
35% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Zhipu AI
Qwen3.5 397B A17B saves you $2.13/month
That's 38% cheaper than GLM 5.1 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.
| Parameter | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 203K |
| Max Output Tokens | 65,536 | 202,752 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Feb 16, 2026 | Apr 7, 2026 |
Both Qwen3.5 397B A17B and GLM 5.1 score 74/100, making them extremely close competitors. Choose based on pricing, provider ecosystem, or specific capability requirements.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B is ranked #51 and GLM 5.1 is ranked #50 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B is cheaper at $2.34/M output tokens vs GLM 5.1's $3.20/M output tokens - 1.4x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen3.5 397B A17B at $0.39/M vs GLM 5.1 at $1.00/M.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a larger context window of 262,144 tokens compared to GLM 5.1's 202,752 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.