Compare/GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 27B

GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)vsQwen3.8 27B

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Z AI

GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)

Input
$1/M
Output
$3.2/M
Speed
40 tok/s
TTFT
1.62s
Alibaba

Qwen3.8 27B

Input
$0.45/M
Output
$3.2/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Qwen3.8 27B
Faster (tok/s)
GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)
Lower Latency
GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)
Benchmarks (0-2)
Qwen3.8 27B

Pricing Comparison

MetricGLM-5 (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.8 27B
Input ($/M tokens)$1$0.45
Output ($/M tokens)$3.2$3.2
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)$1.32
Qwen3.8 27B$0.77

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)
40 tok/s
Qwen3.8 27B
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)
1.62s
Qwen3.8 27B

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.8 27B takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.8 27B is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.8 27B makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (33.2). Qwen3.8 27B leads on Coding Index (68.1), Intelligence Index (52.0).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Z AI and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Z AI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) costs $78.00 ($936/year); Qwen3.8 27B costs $61.50 ($738/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) ≈ $11.40/run, Qwen3.8 27B ≈ $8.65/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) ≈ $520/run, Qwen3.8 27B ≈ $410/run. Qwen3.8 27B becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
33.252.0
Coding Index
68.1
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GLM-5 (Non-reasoning)0 wins
2 winsQwen3.8 27B

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.14/M tokens vs $1.55/M for GLM-5 (Non-reasoning).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Qwen3.8 27B wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for GLM-5 (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) generates tokens faster at 40 tok/s vs — tok/s. GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.62s vs —s).

When should I use GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 27B?

Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.8 27B for lower cost, Qwen3.8 27B for stronger benchmark performance, and GLM-5 (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.