Updated March 26, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data
GLM-5-Turbo and Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) are virtually tied on intelligence (46.8 vs 45.0). For speed, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) wins at 53 tok/s vs 0 tok/s.
| Metric | GLM-5-Turbo | Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Score | 46.8 | 45.0 |
| Coding Score | 36.8 | 41.3 |
| Math Score | N/A | N/A |
| Speed (tok/s) | 0 tok/s | 53 tok/s |
| Latency (TTFT) | 0.00s | 1.46s |
| Input Price / 1M tokens | Free | $0.60 |
| Output Price / 1M tokens | Free | $3.60 |
| Context Window | N/A | N/A |
| Max Output Tokens | N/A | N/A |
| Input Modalities | Text | Text |
GLM-5-Turbo and Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) perform similarly on overall intelligence, scoring 46.8 and 45.0 respectively. For coding tasks, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) has the edge with a coding score of 41.3 vs 36.8.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) generates output significantly faster at 53 tok/s compared to GLM-5-Turbo's 0 tok/s, making it Infinityx faster for streaming responses. Time to first token is 0.00s for GLM-5-Turbo vs 1.46s for Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning), which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.
GLM-5-Turbo is completely free, while Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) costs $0.60/1M input tokens and $3.60/1M output tokens.
Choose Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) when you need stronger coding performance (41.3), faster output (53 tok/s).
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks (41.3 vs 36.8), making it the better choice for programming tasks.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) is faster, producing output at 53 tok/s compared to GLM-5-Turbo's 0 tok/s.
No, GLM-5-Turbo does not support image input. Neither model supports image input.
Both models perform similarly on intelligence benchmarks. Choose based on specific needs: pricing, speed, context window, or provider ecosystem.
Data last synced: March 26, 2026
| Output Modalities | Text | Text |
| Free Tier | Yes | No |