GLM-5.1 vs Qwen 3.8 Max

Verdict

Qwen 3.8 Max leads 5–0 across 5 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 0 · Qwen 3.8 Max 5 · higher isn't always better — check the caveats below.

Per-benchmark head-to-head

Reported scores — protocols may differ. How we compare

Sort

GLM-5.1Qwen 3.8 Max

14.77
AChess Puzzles
25.29
86.53
BGPQA diamond
90.24
93.33
AOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
99.44
22.22
AProofBench
58
37.29
ASimpleQA Verified
46.29

Capabilities

Reasoning

Reasoning: Qwen 3.8 Max leads 2–0 across 2 shared reasoning benchmarks (largest gap: SimpleQA Verified, 46.29 vs 37.29 — single evaluator).

4 reproduced

A higher score does not always mean a better model. Each number is task performance under a disclosed harness. Of the 10 measurements across 5 shared benchmarks, 10 single-evaluator or undisclosed-protocol reports; 80% are independently reproduced. GLM-5.1 pricing is cross-check disputed — weigh cost claims with the same caution as benchmark wins. Check any benchmark's integrity grade before reading a win as decisive.

Frequently asked questions

Qwen 3.8 Max leads 5–0 across 5 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.1 leads 0 benchmarks and Qwen 3.8 Max leads 5. Higher isn't always better — see the integrity caveats on each benchmark.

GLM-5.1 and Qwen 3.8 Max have 5 benchmarks in common in our data — those are the only rows where a direct, apples-to-apples comparison is drawn.

Qwen 3.8 Max leads reasoning 2–0.

Follow the record

These models

Same tier

GLM-5.1 vs …

Qwen 3.8 Max vs …

Frequently asked questions

Qwen 3.8 Max leads 5–0 across 5 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.1 leads 0 benchmarks and Qwen 3.8 Max leads 5. Higher isn't always better — see the integrity caveats on each benchmark.

GLM-5.1 and Qwen 3.8 Max have 5 benchmarks in common in our data — those are the only rows where a direct, apples-to-apples comparison is drawn.

Qwen 3.8 Max leads reasoning 2–0.