Side-by-side comparison
Qwen-Max vs GLM 5.1
| Qwen-Max | GLM 5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 32,768 | 202,752 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 1.0400 | 0.9800 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 4.1600 | 3.0800 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qwen-Max or GLM 5.1?
GLM 5.1 is cheaper than Qwen-Max on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.57 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen-Max or GLM 5.1?
GLM 5.1 has the larger context window at 203k tokens versus 33k tokens for Qwen-Max . That means GLM 5.1 can ingest about 6.2x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Qwen-Max and GLM 5.1?
Qwen-Max comes from Qwen; GLM 5.1 comes from Z.ai. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.