Side-by-side comparison
GLM 5.1 vs Qwen3 Max Thinking
Qwen
Qwen3 Max Thinking
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.7800
Output / 1M
$3.9000
| GLM 5.1 | Qwen3 Max Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 202,752 | 262,144 |
| 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 → | 0.9800 | 0.7800 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 3.0800 | 3.9000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or Qwen3 Max Thinking?
GLM 5.1 is cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.31 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, GLM 5.1 or Qwen3 Max Thinking?
Qwen3 Max Thinking has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 203k tokens for GLM 5.1. That means Qwen3 Max Thinking can ingest about 1.3x as much text per request.
What is the difference between GLM 5.1 and Qwen3 Max Thinking?
GLM 5.1 comes from Z.ai; Qwen3 Max Thinking comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.