Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs GLM 5.2

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort#23 of 4661.9 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 41.3–74.6
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#12 of 44$0.056 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort#7 of 3861.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 51.0–67.6
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.45Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$3.00Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$2.40Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkQwen3.5-397B-A17BGLM-5.2
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,438.2698% of row best · rating · qwen3.5-397b-a17b; 95% CI [1434.97391785, 1441.55191176]; votes 77007; rank 711,466.93100% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.35303996, 1471.51268346]; votes 36798; rank 29
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldQwen3.5-397B-A17BGLM-5.2
DeveloperQwenZ.ai
FamilyQwen3 5 397b A17bGlm 5 2
ModelQwen3.5-397B-A17BGLM-5.2
VersionQwen3.5-397B-A17BGLM-5.2
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-02-15Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,049K
Total parameters403.4B753.3B
Active parameters17BUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0mit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Qwen3.5 397B A17B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers4
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs GLM 5.2 FAQs

Is Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.5 397B A17B and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2?+

Qwen3.5 397B A17B is $0.45 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so Qwen3.5 397B A17B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is $3.00 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2?+

GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.5 397B A17B supports 262K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.

Can Qwen3.5 397B A17B and GLM 5.2 understand images?+

Qwen3.5 397B A17B is documented with image input; GLM 5.2 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is — and GLM 5.2 is —.

Do Qwen3.5 397B A17B and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.5 397B A17B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.2: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2?+

Qwen3.5 397B A17B has 4 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or GLM 5.2?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback