GLM-5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
GLM-5.1 comes out ahead, 57 to 54 and 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.1
57/100- ECI149.9
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context200K
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1
49/100- ECI144.1
- Price$15.00 / $75.00
- Context200K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 Max Preview
54/100- ECI149.2
- Price$1.30 / $7.80
- Context262K
GLM-5.1 is our pick
GLM-5.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54) and Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on inputs & features. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGLM-5.1Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.1 149.9 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 · Claude Opus 4.1 144.1
- Lowest priceGLM-5.1GLM-5.1 $2.15 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 · GLM-5.1 200,000 · Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1GLM-5.1: Text · Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-5.1Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5.1 | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 78 | 71 | 77 |
| Price | 25% | 34 | 0 | 28 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 45 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 32 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 49/100 | 54/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-5.1Z.ai (Zhipu) | Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic | Qwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 149.9 (best) | 144.1 | 149.2 |
| ECI rank | #51 of 148 (best) | #81 of 148 | #54 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 89.9% (best) | 77.3% | 87.4% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 36.8% (best) | 12.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 93.3% (best) | 68.9% | 91.1% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 74.2% | 73.4% | 76.7% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 34.0% | — | 52.0% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.40 | $15.00 | $1.30 (best) |
| Output | $4.40 (best) | $75.00 | $7.80 |
| Cached input | $0.26 | — | $0.13 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15 (best) | $30.00 | $2.92 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 14 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 200,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-5.1 | — | qwen3.6-max-preview |
| API providers | 40 (best) | 14 | 10 |
| Released | Apr 7, 2026 | Aug 5, 2025 | Apr 20, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Mar 31, 2025 | Apr 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-5.1$22.80
- Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5.1, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
GLM-5.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54) and Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on inputs & features. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs $1.30 input / $7.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.15 per million tokens for GLM-5.1 versus $2.92 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview (1.4× as much) and $30.00 for Claude Opus 4.1 (14× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.1 149.9 (#51 of 148), Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148) and Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 (#81 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (148.0–151.6 vs 147.6–152.0), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5.1 89.9%, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 87.4%, Claude Opus 4.1 77.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-5.1 93.3%, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 91.1%, Claude Opus 4.1 68.9%; SWE-bench Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%, GLM-5.1 74.2%, Claude Opus 4.1 73.4%.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%, GLM-5.1 74.2% and Claude Opus 4.1 73.4%. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-5.1 and 200,000 for Claude Opus 4.1. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.1 up to 131,072, Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5.1 accepts text; Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text. Claude Opus 4.1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-5.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the newest, released Apr 20, 2026. GLM-5.1 came out Apr 7, 2026; Claude Opus 4.1 came out Aug 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025, Qwen3.6 Max Preview Apr 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.
