Compare / Qwen3.7-Max vs GLM-5.2
Qwen3.7-Max vs GLM-5.2
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.
Qwen3.7-Max or GLM-5.2? The short answer
Pick GLM-5.2: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 33.7 against 29.5) at about the same price.
- They cost about the same: $2.21 and $2.15 per million tokens (three input to one output).
- GLM-5.2 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 33.7 against 29.5.
- GLM-5.2 is newer: released 16 Jun 2026, against 19 May 2026 for Qwen3.7-Max.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.7-Max does better for sticking to the facts; GLM-5.2 for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.7-Max | GLM-5.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.48 in · $4.42 out | $1.40 in · $4.40 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $2.21 | $2.15 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $0.64 (Decart, MXFP4) |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.26 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 29.5 | 33.7 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 19 May 2026 | 16 Jun 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | 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 | Qwen3.7-Max | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Confirmed task success · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 39 · 19 of 48 measured | -0.09arena agent | 0.05max reasoning, arena agent |
| Praise over complaint · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 39 · 12 of 48 measured | -0.09arena agent | 0.10max reasoning, arena agent |
| Steerability · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 41 · 22 of 48 measured | -0.06arena agent | 0.01max reasoning, arena agent |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 53 · 42 of 243 measured | 29.5 | 33.7max reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 21 · 49 of 231 measured | 92.3% | 89.5%max reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 39 · 35 of 242 measured | 40.5% | 41.1%max reasoning |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) reported by SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) · 1 result | ||
| Correct answers% of questions, higher is better 18 · 51 of 76 measured | 55.8% | 34.2%max reasoning |
Show all 17 results (10 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.7-Max | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 1 result | ||
| Tool grounding · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 34 · 9 of 48 measured | 0.00arena agent | 0.00max reasoning, arena agent |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 9 results | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 33 · 30 of 130 measured | 74.5% | 77.9%max reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 51 · 52 of 112 measured | 1.5% | 1.0%max reasoning |
| τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 71 · 27 of 121 measured | 11.8% | 34.6%max reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 34 · 30 of 131 measured | 66.0 | 68.8max reasoning |
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 5 · 33 of 195 measured | 80.5% | 73.3%max reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 50 · 54 of 233 measured | 79.0% | 78.3%max reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 52 · 42 of 113 measured | 49.5% | 51.2%max reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 12 of 190 measured | 50.8% | 50.8%max reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 22 · 1 of 193 measured | 94.7% | 99.1%max reasoning |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.7-Max better than GLM-5.2?
Pick GLM-5.2: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 33.7 against 29.5) at about the same price.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7-Max or GLM-5.2?
They cost about the same: $2.21 and $2.15 per million tokens (three input to one output).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.7-Max or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2 ranks 40 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 69 for Qwen3.7-Max.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.7-Max or GLM-5.2?
Qwen3.7-Max ranks 39 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 43 for GLM-5.2.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.7-Max or GLM-5.2?
Qwen3.7-Max ranks 31 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 68 for GLM-5.2.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.7-Max or GLM-5.2?
GLM-5.2: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.7-Max.
Run Qwen3.7-Max and GLM-5.2 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.