Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

Qwen: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1

The average score is effectively tied at 7.1 vs 7.1. GLM 5.1 (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.535 vs $1.046. GLM 5.1 (medium) is faster at 46.77s vs 64.16s, with pass rates of 71.2% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelGLM 5.1 (medium)It has the best score here (7.1), while costing about 2.0x less than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-18

Metric Qwen3.5-122B-A10B Qwen3.5-122B-A10B medium Release: 2026-02-24 GLM 5.1 GLM 5.1 medium Release: 2026-04-07
Score 7.1 7.1
Rank #71 #73
Reliability 10.0 8.3
Consistency 8.5 8.4
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 71.2% 69.7%
Flaky tests 4 4
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 8.509 4.202
Total Cost $1.046 $0.535
Input Price $0.260 / 1M $0.966 / 1M
Output Price $2.080 / 1M $3.036 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 124,771 82,623
Output Tokens 44,077 16,089
Reasoning Tokens 443,141 136,463
Response Time (avg) 64.16s 46.77s
Response Time (max) 519.30s 308.75s
Response Time (total) 1411.60s 982.16s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#71 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

medium
Cost
$0.019
Time
48.7s
Tokens
6,034 tok

#73 GLM 5.1

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
300.0s
Tokens
0 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 6.0 7.2 55.6% 1 114.48s 7,630 8,057 82,578
GLM 5.1 4.6 3.7 44.5% 2 109.63s 5,702 4,871 37,826

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair