Back to Value Frontier

Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Z.ai: GLM Latest

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 1:46:39 PM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking against Z.ai: GLM Latest, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. Z.ai: GLM Latest is approximately 6% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, Z.ai: GLM Latest leads with a statistical ELO score of 1418. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer Z.ai: GLM Latest, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
Z.ai: GLM Latest
Performance (ELO)
1418
1418
Input Cost / 1M
$0.40
$0.12
Output Cost / 1M
$4.00
$4.00
Context Window
131,072 tokens
1,048,576 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Tie is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, Z.ai: GLM Latest wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking cheaper than Z.ai: GLM Latest?

No. Z.ai: GLM Latest is the more cost-effective model, operating at a lower price point per 1 million tokens.

Which model has the larger context window?

The Z.ai: GLM Latest model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 1,048,576 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Apodex: Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs inclusionAI: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free)Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Cohere: North Mini Code (free)Compare Qwen: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni (free)