Qwen3.8 Max vs GLM 5.2
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Qwen3.8-Max | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #19 of 36$0.107 per LiveBench case | #11 of 36$0.056 per LiveBench case |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8-Max | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,479.56100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-max; 95% CI [1473.34740586, 1485.77213629]; votes 13136; rank 12 | 1,466.8099% of row best · rating · glm-5.2-max; 95% CI [1462.10739564, 1471.49788772]; votes 33758; rank 26 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 81.88100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-max · 21,637 output tokens / case | 76.9694% of row best · percent · glm-5.2 · 23,463 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Qwen3.8-Max | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Family | Qwen3 8 Max | Glm 5 2 |
| Model | Qwen3.8-Max | GLM-5.2 |
| Version | Qwen3.8-Max | GLM-5.2 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 2.4T | 753.3B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | mit |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
14 comparable fields · 11 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Qwen3.8 Max Capabilities
GLM 5.2 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text, video |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
| vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.8 Max vs GLM 5.2 FAQs
Is Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 Max and GLM 5.2, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2?+
Qwen3.8 Max is $1.65 and GLM 5.2 is $0.75 per million tokens, so GLM 5.2 is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 Max is $4.951 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, Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2?+
GLM 5.2 has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 Max supports 1,000K and GLM 5.2 supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2?+
Qwen3.8 Max leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2 be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.2 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.8 Max is not marked open weight; GLM 5.2 is open weight.
Can Qwen3.8 Max and GLM 5.2 understand images?+
Qwen3.8 Max 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, Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 Max is 131K and GLM 5.2 is —.
Do Qwen3.8 Max and GLM 5.2 support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.8 Max: 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, Qwen3.8 Max or GLM 5.2?+
Qwen3.8 Max has 4 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.2 has 5, so GLM 5.2 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 Max 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.