Model Comparison

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs GLM-5.1

GLM-5.1 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 1.6x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

8 benchmarks

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 2 benchmarks (GPQA, HMMT 2025), while GLM-5.1 is better at 6 benchmarks (AIME 2026, BrowseComp, Humanity's Last Exam, IMO-AnswerBench, Terminal-Bench 2.0, Toolathlon).

GLM-5.1 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs less

For input processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 2.3x cheaper than GLM-5.1 ($1.40/1M tokens).

For output processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 1.2x cheaper than GLM-5.1 ($4.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, GLM-5.1 is more expensive than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input tokens$0.60
Output tokens$3.60
Best providerNovita
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1
Input tokens$1.40
Output tokens$4.40
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

357.0B diff

GLM-5.1 has 357.0B more parameters than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, making it 89.9% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
397.0Bparameters
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1
754.0Bparameters
397.0B
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
754.0B
GLM-5.1

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to GLM-5.1's 200,000 tokens. GLM-5.1 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is limited to 64,000 tokens.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input262,144 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1
Input200,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports multimodal inputs, whereas GLM-5.1 does not.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GLM-5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while GLM-5.1 uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

GLM-5.1

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16, while GLM-5.1 was released on 2026-04-07.

GLM-5.1 is 2 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Feb 16, 2026

1 months ago

GLM-5.1

Apr 7, 2026

6 days ago

1mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita. GLM-5.1 is available from ZAI.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.60/1M

GLM-5.1

z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $1.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.40/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Larger context window (262,144 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Higher GPQA score (88.4% vs 86.2%)
Higher HMMT 2025 score (94.8% vs 94.0%)
Zhipu AI
Higher AIME 2026 score (95.3% vs 91.3%)
Higher BrowseComp score (79.3% vs 69.0%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (52.3% vs 28.7%)
Higher IMO-AnswerBench score (83.8% vs 80.9%)
Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (69.0% vs 52.5%)
Higher Toolathlon score (40.7% vs 38.3%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.1

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs GLM-5.1

GLM-5.1 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and GLM-5.1 is made by Zhipu AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B scores MMLU-Redux: 94.9%, HMMT 2025: 94.8%, C-Eval: 93.0%, HMMT25: 92.7%, IFEval: 92.6%. GLM-5.1 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2026: 95.3%, HMMT 2025: 94.0%, GPQA: 86.2%, IMO-AnswerBench: 83.8%.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 2.3x cheaper for input tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output via novita. GLM-5.1 costs $1.40/M input and $4.40/M output via z.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K tokens and GLM-5.1 supports 200K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (262K vs 200K), input pricing ($0.60 vs $1.40/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and GLM-5.1 is developed by Zhipu AI.