Compare / Qwen3.5-27B vs GLM-4.6V
Qwen3.5-27B vs GLM-4.6V
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 17 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Of the 17 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.
Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.6V? The short answer
Pick Qwen3.5-27B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 22.9 against 11.2). Pick GLM-4.6V if cost matters more: it costs 39% less per token.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper: $0.45 against $0.74 per million tokens, 39% less.
- Qwen3.5-27B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 22.9 against 11.2.
- Qwen3.5-27B is newer: released 24 Feb 2026, against 8 Dec 2025 for GLM-4.6V.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.5-27B does better for reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.5-27B | GLM-4.6V | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.27 in · $2.16 out | $0.30 in · $0.90 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.74 | $0.45 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.54 (Alibaba) | $0.45 (Novita, BF16) |
| Intelligence Index | 22.9 | 11.2 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | 24 Feb 2026 (newer) | 8 Dec 2025 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Developer based in | China | China |
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.
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.
| Measure | Qwen3.5-27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 129 · 164 of 387 measured | 1,409 | 1,379 |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 112 · 139 of 163 measured | 1,420 | 1,392 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 128 · 165 of 380 measured | 1,408 | 1,370 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 86 · 161 of 243 measured | 22.9 | 11.2thinking reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 74 · 151 of 231 measured | 85.8% | 71.9%thinking reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 95 · 159 of 242 measured | 23.9% | 9.6%thinking reasoning |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 99 · 111 of 230 measured | 42.4think-prefill reasoning | 39.7thinking reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 49 · 180 of 230 measured | 11.0%think-prefill reasoning | 35.0%thinking reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 147 · 22 of 230 measured | 0.33no reasoning | 0.39no reasoning |
Show all 17 results (8 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.5-27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results | ||
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 145 · 153 of 385 measured | 1,358 | 1,351 |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 112 · 164 of 338 measured | 1,441 | 1,394 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 163 of 387 measured | 1,401 | 1,367 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 135 · 160 of 386 measured | 1,380 | 1,357 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 24 · 181 of 195 measured | 75.6% | 30.1%thinking reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 63 · 158 of 233 measured | 77.7% | 48.7%thinking reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 61 · 114 of 190 measured | 32.6% | 14.4%thinking reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 130 of 193 measured | 93.9% | 31.6%thinking reasoning |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.5-27B better than GLM-4.6V?
Pick Qwen3.5-27B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 22.9 against 11.2). Pick GLM-4.6V if cost matters more: it costs 39% less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.6V?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper: $0.45 against $0.74 per million tokens, 39% less.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.6V?
Qwen3.5-27B ranks 82 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 135 for GLM-4.6V.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.6V?
Qwen3.5-27B ranks 98 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 120 for GLM-4.6V.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.6V?
Qwen3.5-27B ranks 121 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 134 for GLM-4.6V.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.6V?
Qwen3.5-27B: 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for GLM-4.6V.
Run Qwen3.5-27B and GLM-4.6V on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.