Qwen3.5vsGLM-5
Qwen3.5 | GLM-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 397B | 744B |
Context window | 1M | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 28% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76.4% | 77.8%Best |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 69.3% | 73.3%Best |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 52.5% | 56.2%Best |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 69% | 75.9%Best |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 28.7% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 50.4% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 88.4%Best | 86% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 62.2% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 80.8% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 85% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1435 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Release date | Feb 16 2026 | Feb 12 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Which is better: Qwen3.5 or GLM-5?
GLM-5 leads Qwen3.5 on 4 of the 5 benchmarks they both report. GLM-5 shipped 4 days before Qwen3.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.5 has 397B parameters, while GLM-5 has 744B.
On SWE-Bench Verified, GLM-5 leads at 77.8% vs Qwen3.5 at 76.4%. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, GLM-5 leads at 73.3% vs Qwen3.5 at 69.3%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, GLM-5 leads at 56.2% vs Qwen3.5 at 52.5%. On BrowseComp, GLM-5 leads at 75.9% vs Qwen3.5 at 69%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.5 leads at 88.4% vs GLM-5 at 86%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
GLM-5 was released by Z.ai on Feb 12 2026.
GLM-5 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Qwen3.5 76.4% vs GLM-5 77.8%.
Qwen3.5 leads on GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 88.4% vs GLM-5 86%.