| Signal | Qwen3 Max Thinking | Delta | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -- | |
Pricing | 4 | +2 | |
Context window size | 86 | +8 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 75 | -10 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 1 wins |
8
days higher
5
days
17
days higher
Alibaba
Zhipu AI
GLM 5 saves you $86.00/month
That's $1032.00/year compared to Qwen3 Max Thinking at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen3 Max Thinking | GLM 5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 82 | 82 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Rank | #70 | #71 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Quality Rank | #70 | #71 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Adoption Rank | #70 | #71 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 80K | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Pricing | $0.78/$3.90/M | $0.72/$2.30/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 67 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Pricing | 4 | 2 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Context window size | 86 | 78 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Qwen3 Max Thinking |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 85 | GLM 5 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 82/100 (rank #70), placing it in the top 76% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 82/100 (rank #71), placing it in the top 76% 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.
GLM 5 offers 35% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $45.30/month with GLM 5 vs $70.20/month with Qwen3 Max Thinking - a $24.90 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. GLM 5 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 ($2.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (82/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Qwen3 Max Thinking and GLM 5 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.09999999999999432 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Qwen3 Max Thinking
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GLM 5
35% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen3 Max Thinking
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen3 Max Thinking
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen3 Max Thinking
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen3 Max Thinking | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Zhipu AI
GLM 5 saves you $2.03/month
That's 33% cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking 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 Max Thinking | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 80K |
| Max Output Tokens | 32,768 | 131,072 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Feb 9, 2026 | Feb 11, 2026 |
Qwen3 Max Thinking scores 82/100 (rank #70) compared to GLM 5's 82/100 (rank #71), giving it a 0-point advantage. Qwen3 Max Thinking is the stronger overall choice, though GLM 5 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Qwen3 Max Thinking is ranked #70 and GLM 5 is ranked #71 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
GLM 5 is cheaper at $2.30/M output tokens vs Qwen3 Max Thinking's $3.90/M output tokens - 1.7x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen3 Max Thinking at $0.78/M vs GLM 5 at $0.72/M.
Qwen3 Max Thinking has a larger context window of 262,144 tokens compared to GLM 5's 80,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.