Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen: Qwen3.5-27B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2 leads on average score with 6.6 vs 6.5. GLM 5.2 has the lower benchmark cost at $0.047 vs $0.090. Qwen3.5-27B is faster at 4.76s vs 9.34s, with pass rates of 40.9% vs 59.1%.

Recommended modelQwen3.5-27BIts score stays close to the best score here (6.5 vs 6.6), while responding about 2.0x faster than GLM 5.2.

Last updated at: 2026-07-18

Metric Qwen3.5-27B Qwen3.5-27B none Release: 2026-02-24 GLM 5.2 GLM 5.2 none Release: 2026-06-17
Score 6.5 6.6
Rank #100 #94
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.3 9.2
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 40.9% 59.1%
Flaky tests 2 2
Total Runs 66 64
Cost per result 0.763 1.421
Total Cost $0.090 $0.047
Input Price $0.260 / 1M $0.293 / 1M
Output Price $2.600 / 1M $0.920 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 102,316 112,359
Output Tokens 24,321 14,340
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 4.76s 9.34s
Response Time (max) 69.46s 79.65s
Response Time (total) 104.71s 205.46s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#100 Qwen3.5-27B

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
42.9s
Tokens
4,273 tok

#94 GLM 5.2

none
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.033
Time
87.7s
Tokens
7,455 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
Qwen3.5-27B 5.8 10.0 33.3% 0 1.80s 7,913 415 0
GLM 5.2 3.7 9.5 0.0% 0 7.55s 7,263 1,958 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair