Qwen3.7 Plus 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$0.32Openrouter · Sep 23, 2026$0.75Deepinfra · Sep 23, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$1.28Openrouter · Sep 23, 2026$2.40Deepinfra · Sep 23, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,000K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 29, 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 →
BenchmarkQwen3.7-PlusGLM-5.2
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader-6.0890% of row best · score · Qwen3.7 Plus; 95% CI [-7.29245632, -4.87295146]; sessions 20905; observations 993739; rank 404.37100% of row best · score · GLM 5.2 (Max); 95% CI [3.67608698, 5.05982987]; sessions 76766; observations 4943866; rank 14
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,454.2099% of row best · rating · qwen3.7-plus; 95% CI [1449.75378609, 1458.63820942]; votes 39334; rank 391,466.93100% 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 winner2 benchmark winsNo 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

FieldQwen3.7-PlusGLM-5.2
DeveloperQwenZ.ai
FamilyQwen3 7 PlusGlm 5 2
ModelQwen3.7-PlusGLM-5.2
VersionQwen3.7-PlusGLM-5.2
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknownUnknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, Image, VideoText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,049K
Total parametersUnknown753.3B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownmit
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessAlibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitiesagents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, visionchat, generation, reasoning, tools

Qwen3.7 Plus Capabilities

agentschatcomputer-usereasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.7-plus

GLM 5.2 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers5
Canonical IDzai-org/GLM-5.2

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.7 Plus vs GLM 5.2 FAQs

Is Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.7 Plus and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2?+

Qwen3.7 Plus is $0.32 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.7 Plus is $1.28 and GLM 5.2 is $2.40 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2?+

GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.7 Plus supports 1,000K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+

GLM 5.2 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.7 Plus is not marked open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.

Can Qwen3.7 Plus and GLM 5.2 understand images?+

Qwen3.7 Plus 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, Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.7 Plus is 131K and GLM 5.2 is —.

Do Qwen3.7 Plus and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.7 Plus: 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, Qwen3.7 Plus or GLM 5.2?+

Qwen3.7 Plus has 4 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.7 Plus 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