GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which one, when
Both are text-out reasoning models with tools, code and optional thinking, so the split is mostly price, context and inputs: qwen3.7-plus costs $0.4 input and $1.6 output against $1.4 and $4.4 for glm-5.1, making the Z.ai model 3.5x more per input token and 2.75x more per output token, and it also carries a 1000000-token window (5x the 200000 of glm-5.1) plus image and video input. Pick qwen3.7-plus for cheap high-volume work, huge documents, or anything with images or video; pick glm-5.1 when you need a single response longer than 65536 tokens, since it allows up to 131072.
Benchmarks
GLM-5.1: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.4 | $0.4 | 3.5× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $4.4 | $1.6 | 2.8× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.26 | $0.08 | 3.3× |
| Cache write | - | 1.25x | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | implicit (automatic) | implicit + explicit |
| Cache lifetime | not published | explicit: 5m, reset on hit |
| Minimum cached prefix | not published | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| GLM-5.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-06-01 |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Thinking parameter | thinking.type |
|
| Accepted values | thinking.type
| enable_thinking
thinking_budget
preserve_thinking
|
| Default | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think | on the Qwen3.7 Plus series is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, and preserve_thinking is off |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GLM-5.1 · Qwen3.7 Plus
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
GLM-5.1 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning shifts the LLM from generating quick answers to producing hidden "chain-of-thought" tokens that systematically explore multiple solution paths before responding. Because billing is based on total tokens processed, these invisible reasoning tokens drastically increase input and output volume per query, often adding thousands of compute-intensive tokens to a single prompt. Consequently, our bill doubled not from higher per-token rates or increased user volume, but from the exponentially deeper computational work required to deliver higher-quality, more reliable outputs.
out 98 tok latency 7.8 s
Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning requires the model to generate extensive internal "thinking" tokens to process complex logic before delivering a final answer. Because our vendor charges us per token consumed, this hidden computational overhead effectively doubles our output volume for the exact same number of user requests. Consequently, our costs have doubled because we are now paying for the model's increased processing time to achieve higher-quality, more accurate results.
out 1428 tok (+1345 thinking) latency 25.2 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
GLM-5.1 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and only incremented `cur` when a duplicate was found. This counts the number of *extra* equal items in a run rather than the total run length, so every run is reported as one shorter than it actually is—returning `0` for single-element lists and `L-1` for a run of length `L` (including those ending at the last index). The fix initializes `cur` and `best` to `1` (when the list is non‑empty) and resets `cur` to `1` on a mismatch, so `cur` tracks the full length of the current run and `best` records the true maximum.
out 3823 tok (+3585 thinking) latency 49.7 s
Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 8/8 cases
## Fixed Code ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ## Bug Explanation The function has two related bugs rooted in how it counts run lengths. First, `cur` is initialized to `0` and only incremented on matches, so it counts the number of *transitions* between equal elements rather than the total elements in the run—a run of N identical items only reaches `cur = N − 1`, undercounting by one. This also causes the single-element case to return `0`, since the loop never executes and `cur` never increments. […]
out 2317 tok (+2005 thinking) latency 40.5 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
GLM-5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 1091 tok (+1028 thinking) latency 15.2 s
Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
out 1807 tok (+1750 thinking) latency 31.6 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
GLM-5.1 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are excited to introduce Prompt Cache for our API Gateway. This new feature stores responses for identical prompts, routing subsequent requests directly to the cache instead of calling the underlying AI provider. Are you tired of paying multiple times for the exact same query? Prompt Cache solves this by recognizing duplicate inputs across all supported providers, drastically reducing latency and operational costs. When a user submits a request that matches a previously cached prompt, the gateway returns the stored answer instantly. You can configure cache expiration and scope rules via your dashboard to maintain data freshness. Stop wasting budget on redundant computational work. Upgrade to the latest gateway tier today to start saving time and money on every call.
out 3935 tok (+3802 thinking) latency 41.1 s
Qwen3.7 Plus passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing PromptCache, our new API gateway feature designed to store and reuse prompts across multiple artificial intelligence providers. Have you ever noticed how repeatedly sending identical queries drains your budget and increases latency? PromptCache solves this by intelligently storing responses at the gateway level. When your application requests the same prompt from a different provider, the system instantly returns the cached result. This drastically reduces API costs and accelerates response times for your users. You can configure custom expiration times and set specific fallback rules for each vendor. You must stop paying twice for the exact same computation. Please upgrade your entire infrastructure today and experience much faster and cheaper integrations without changing a single line of your application code.
out 4453 tok (+4312 thinking) latency 76.8 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.1",
# model="qwen3.7-plus", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "glm-5.1",
// model: "qwen3.7-plus", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "glm-5.1",
# "model": "qwen3.7-plus", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "glm-5.1",
// Model: "qwen3.7-plus", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("glm-5.1")
// .model("qwen3.7-plus") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.4 vs $1.4, 3.5× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test GLM-5.1 against Qwen3.7 Plus without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do GLM-5.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.