GLM-5 vs GPT-5.4 mini vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65, GPT-5.4 mini 63, GLM-5 55). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5
55/100- ECI145.8
- Price$1.00 / $3.20
- Context205K
OpenAIGPT-5.4 mini
63/100- ECI148.8
- Price$0.75 / $4.50
- Context400K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
65/100- ECI146.7
- Price$0.60 / $3.60
- Context262K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100, GPT-5.4 mini 63/100, GLM-5 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GPT-5.4 mini for raw capability and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGPT-5.4 miniCapabilities Index (ECI): GPT-5.4 mini 148.8 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 · GLM-5 145.8
- Lowest priceQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 · GLM-5 $1.55 · GPT-5.4 mini $1.69 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGPT-5.4 miniGPT-5.4 mini 400,000 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 · GLM-5 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BGLM-5: Text · GPT-5.4 mini: Text, Images · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-5 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-5 | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 73 | 77 | 74 |
| Price | 25% | 41 | 39 | 44 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 70 | 90 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 44 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 63/100 | 65/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-5Z.ai (Zhipu) | GPT-5.4 miniOpenAI | Qwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 145.8 | 148.8 (best) | 146.7 |
| ECI rank | #74 of 148 | #56 of 148 (best) | #67 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 87.8% (best) | 86.9% | 86.4% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 51.2% (best) | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 80.0% | 88.9% (best) | 88.9% (best) |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 72.1% | — | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 29.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.00 | $0.75 | $0.60 (best) |
| Output | $3.20 (best) | $4.50 | $3.60 |
| Cached input | $0.20 | $0.075 (best) | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.55 | $1.69 | $1.35 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official OpenAI API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 400,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | glm-5 | gpt-5.4-mini | qwen3.5-397b-a17b |
| API providers | 27 | 29 (best) | 23 |
| Released | Feb 12, 2026 | Mar 17, 2026 | Feb 15, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Aug 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-5$16.40
- GPT-5.4 mini$16.50
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-5, GPT-5.4 mini or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100, GPT-5.4 mini 63/100, GLM-5 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GPT-5.4 mini for raw capability and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5, GPT-5.4 mini or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). GLM-5 costs $1.00 input / $3.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); GPT-5.4 mini costs $0.75 input / $4.50 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.35 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B versus $1.55 for GLM-5 (1.1× as much) and $1.69 for GPT-5.4 mini (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GPT-5.4 mini scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GPT-5.4 mini 148.8 (#56 of 148), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148) and GLM-5 145.8 (#74 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (147.1–150.5 vs 144.8–148.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5 87.8%, GPT-5.4 mini 86.9%, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 86.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GPT-5.4 mini 88.9%, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 88.9%, GLM-5 80.0%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT-5.4 mini and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GPT-5.4 mini leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.4 mini has the largest context window at 400,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and 204,800 for GLM-5. Maximum output per response: GLM-5 up to 131,072, GPT-5.4 mini up to 128,000, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-5 accepts text; GPT-5.4 mini accepts text and images; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-5 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-5.4 mini is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GPT-5.4 mini is the newest, released Mar 17, 2026. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 2026; GLM-5 came out Feb 12, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-5.4 mini Aug 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.
