Model Comparison
GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Z AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
50.5 reasoning / $1.35/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
$0.60/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning)
51.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
36.5 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 27B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) is 2.3x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.2x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) by 0.6 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) leads GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning) by 0.7 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 (Non-reasoning)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Z GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.40/1M | $0.60/1M |
| Output Cost | $4.40/1M | $3.60/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.15/1M | $1.35/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Z AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 7, 2026 | Apr 22, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 79.8 tok/s | 65.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | 919ms | 1461ms |
| Latency | 919ms | 87987ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 63.5 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 51.1 | 50.5 |
| Intelligence | 43.8 | 45.8 |
| Coding | 35.8 | 36.5 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 83.9% | 84.2% |
| HLE | 25.6% | 21.6% |
| SciCode | 36.1% | 39.8% |
| LCR | 44.3% | 68.7% |
| IFBench | 52.0% | 67.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 97.1% | 94.2% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 35.6% | 34.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.60/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GLM-5.1 (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 51.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) reaches a 36.5 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 (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
