Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GLM-4.5

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GLM-4.5

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 16 results on 3 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 Released 25 Jul 2025 · $0.30 in · $3.00 out
Z.aiGLM-4.5 Released 3 Aug 2025 · $0.60 in · $2.20 out
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 wins 56 too close to callGLM-4.5 wins 5

Of the 16 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Z.ai, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.5? The short answer

They score and cost about the same: pick on the results below that match your work.

  • They cost about the same: $0.97 and $1.00 per million tokens (three input to one output).
  • They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (12.7 and 12.8).
  • GLM-4.5 is newer: released 3 Aug 2025, against 25 Jul 2025 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does better for reasoning and knowledge; GLM-4.5 for writing.

Head to head

12.7
Intelligence Index
12.8
$0.97
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$1.00
131,072
Context window, tokens
131,072

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507GLM-4.5
Price per million tokens$0.30 in · $3.00 out$0.60 in · $2.20 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.97$1.00
Cheapest host, blended$0.75 (Alibaba)–
Intelligence Index12.712.8
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Released25 Jul 20253 Aug 2025 (newer)
WeightsOpenOpen
Developer based inChinaChina

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 138 of 164 not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 117 of 198 120 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 122 of 188 76 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 92 of 152 not measured

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507GLM-4.5
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 125 of 387 measured 1,400 1,411
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 121 of 380 measured 1,404 1,412
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 130 of 385 measured 1,371 1,372
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 147 · 145 of 243 measured 12.7 12.8
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 114 · 118 of 231 measured 79.0% 78.2%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 122 · 134 of 242 measured 15.9% 13.0%
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 139 · 53 of 230 measured 32.4 57.3thinking reasoning
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 166 · 57 of 230 measured 30.0% 13.0%no reasoning
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 194 · 73 of 230 measured 0.31 0.36thinking reasoning
Show all 16 results (7 more)
MeasureQwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507GLM-4.5
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 85 · 107 of 338 measured 1,466 1,444
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 142 · 117 of 387 measured 1,385 1,405
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 132 of 386 measured 1,377 1,382
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 101 · 119 of 195 measured 51.2% 44.1%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 99 · 150 of 233 measured 72.0% 52.7%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 116 · 87 of 190 measured 13.6% 22.0%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 101 · 112 of 193 measured 53.2% 43.0%

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 better than GLM-4.5?

They score and cost about the same: pick on the results below that match your work.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.5?

They cost about the same: $0.97 and $1.00 per million tokens (three input to one output).

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.5?

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 117 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 120 for GLM-4.5.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.5?

GLM-4.5 ranks 76 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 122 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.

Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 and GLM-4.5 on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.