GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus comes out ahead, 66 to 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.1
57/100- ECI149.9
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context200K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 Plus
66/100- ECI147.6
- Price$0.50 / $3.00
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.6 Plus is our pick
Qwen3.6 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against GLM-5.1 (57). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. GLM-5.1 wins on capability. 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 Plus 147.6
- Lowest priceQwen3.6 PlusQwen3.6 Plus $1.13 · GLM-5.1 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.6 PlusQwen3.6 Plus 1,000,000 · GLM-5.1 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.6 PlusGLM-5.1: Text · Qwen3.6 Plus: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-5.1Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 78 | 75 |
| Price | 25% | 34 | 47 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 45 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 66/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-5.1Z.ai (Zhipu) | Qwen3.6 PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 149.9 (best) | 147.6 |
| ECI rank | #51 of 148 (best) | #59 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 89.9% (best) | 88.4% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 36.8% | 38.3% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 93.3% | 93.3% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 74.2% (best) | 57.9% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 34.0% | 44.1% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.40 | $0.50 (best) |
| Output | $4.40 | $3.00 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.26 | $0.05 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15 | $1.13 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 256K: $2.00 / $6.00 |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-5.1 | qwen3.6-plus |
| API providers | 40 (best) | 18 |
| Released | Apr 7, 2026 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus$11.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against GLM-5.1 (57). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. GLM-5.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 input / $3.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). GLM-5.1 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.13 per million tokens for Qwen3.6 Plus versus $2.15 for GLM-5.1 (1.9× 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) and Qwen3.6 Plus 147.6 (#59 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (148.0–151.6 vs 145.4–149.3), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5.1 89.9%, Qwen3.6 Plus 88.4%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Qwen3.6 Plus 38.3%, GLM-5.1 36.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-5.1 93.3%, Qwen3.6 Plus 93.3%; SWE-bench Verified — GLM-5.1 74.2%, Qwen3.6 Plus 57.9%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3.6 Plus 44.1%, GLM-5.1 34.0%.
Which is better for coding?
GLM-5.1 resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: GLM-5.1 74.2% and Qwen3.6 Plus 57.9%. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-5.1. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.1 up to 131,072, Qwen3.6 Plus up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5.1 accepts text; Qwen3.6 Plus accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.6 Plus handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-5.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.6 Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-5.1 is the newest, released Apr 7, 2026. Qwen3.6 Plus came out Apr 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Kimi K2.7 CodeThree-way comparison
- GLM-5.1 vs Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI · ECI 150.0
- GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 149.2
- GLM-5.1 vs Grok 4.3xAI · ECI 149.2
- GLM-5.1 vs GPT-5.4 miniOpenAI · ECI 148.8
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Kimi K2.5Moonshot AI · ECI 148.0
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.2
