Model Comparison
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Z AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Z GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
41.9 reasoning / $0.84/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
$0.38/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
55.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
43.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) is 3.7x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-5.1 (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) generates about 2.4x as many tokens per second as GLM-5.1 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) by 13.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) by 25.8 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Z GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.40/1M | $0.38/1M |
| Output Cost | $4.40/1M | $2.25/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15/1M | $0.84/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Z AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 7, 2026 | Apr 16, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 70.7 tok/s | 167.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | 875ms | 1394ms |
| Latency | 54468ms | 1394ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 51.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 55.4 | 41.9 |
| Intelligence | 51.4 | 31.5 |
| Coding | 43.4 | 17.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 86.8% | 81.7% |
| HLE | 28.0% | 12.5% |
| SciCode | 43.8% | 1.3% |
| LCR | 62.3% | 56.7% |
| IFBench | 76.3% | 36.2% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 97.7% | 85.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 43.2% | 25.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.38/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 55.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) reaches a 43.4 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
