ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.6 27B vs GLM-5.1

Qwen3.6 27B comes out ahead, 65 to 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.6 27B

    Released Apr 22, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.5
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.6 27B

  2. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5.1

    Released Apr 7, 2026

    57/100
    • ECI149.9
    • Price$1.40 / $4.40
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove GLM-5.1

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.6 27B is our pick

Qwen3.6 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 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 27B 146.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 27BQwen3.6 27B $1.35 · GLM-5.1 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.6 27BQwen3.6 27B 262,144 · GLM-5.1 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.6 27BQwen3.6 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · GLM-5.1: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.6 27BGLM-5.1
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7478
Price25%4434
Inputs & features15%9045
Context window10%3732
Overall100%65/10057/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.6 27B vs GLM-5.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.6 27BAlibaba (Qwen)GLM-5.1Z.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.5149.9 (best)
ECI rank#68 of 148#51 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions85.9%89.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics35.1%36.8% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics91.1%93.3% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—74.2%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—34.0%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60 (best)$1.40
Output$3.60 (best)$4.40
Cached input—$0.26
Blended (3:1)$1.35 (best)$2.15
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)200,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDqwen3.6-27bglm-5.1
API providers2740 (best)
ReleasedApr 22, 2026Apr 7, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.6 27B$13.20
  • GLM-5.1$22.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.6 27B or GLM-5.1?

Qwen3.6 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 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, Qwen3.6 27B or GLM-5.1?

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 input / $3.60 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 $1.35 per million tokens for Qwen3.6 27B versus $2.15 for GLM-5.1 (1.6× 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 27B 146.5 (#68 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (148.0–151.6 vs 144.2–147.9), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5.1 89.9%, Qwen3.6 27B 85.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — GLM-5.1 36.8%, Qwen3.6 27B 35.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-5.1 93.3%, Qwen3.6 27B 91.1%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.6 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-5.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-5.1. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.6 27B up to 65,536, GLM-5.1 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.6 27B accepts text, images, audio and video; GLM-5.1 accepts text. Qwen3.6 27B 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?

Qwen3.6 27B is the newest, released Apr 22, 2026. GLM-5.1 came out Apr 7, 2026.

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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons