GLM-4.5V vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
Too close to call on our weighted score (GLM-4.5V 49, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 48). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5V
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $1.80
- Context64K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $4.00
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (GLM-4.5V 49/100, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 48/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.5V on price and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGLM-4.5VGLM-4.5V $0.90 · Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking $1.30 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 131,072 · GLM-4.5V 64,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGLM-4.5VGLM-4.5V: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5V | Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 52 | 44 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 48/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-4.5VZ.ai (Zhipu) | Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.60 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $1.80 (best) | $4.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.90 (best) | $1.30 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 9 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 64,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.5v | — |
| API providers | 11 (best) | 9 |
| Released | Aug 11, 2025 | Sep 23, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Mar 31, 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-4.5V$9.60
- Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking$12.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5V or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (GLM-4.5V 49/100, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 48/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.5V on price and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5V or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking?
GLM-4.5V is cheaper at $0.60 input / $1.80 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking costs $0.40 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.90 per million tokens for GLM-4.5V versus $1.30 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-4.5V has not been scored yet and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5V and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 64,000 for GLM-4.5V. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5V up to 16,384, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5V accepts text, images and video; Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking accepts text and images. GLM-4.5V handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the newest, released Sep 23, 2025. GLM-4.5V came out Aug 11, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.5V Apr 2025, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking Mar 31, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructThree-way comparison
- GLM-4.5V vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- GLM-4.5V vs Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI
- GLM-4.5V vs Ling-1TinclusionAI
- GLM-4.5V vs Apertus 70BSwiss AI
- Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Apertus 70BSwiss AI
- Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs GLM-4.6Z.ai (Zhipu)
