Compare/QwQ 32B vs GLM-4.5-Air

QwQ 32BvsGLM-4.5-Air

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

Alibaba

QwQ 32B

Input
$0.66/M
Output
$1/M
Speed
TTFT
Z AI

GLM-4.5-Air

Input
$0.17/M
Output
$0.98/M
Speed
43 tok/s
TTFT
2.82s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
GLM-4.5-Air
Faster (tok/s)
GLM-4.5-Air
Lower Latency
GLM-4.5-Air
Benchmarks (0-1)
GLM-4.5-Air

Pricing Comparison

MetricQwQ 32BGLM-4.5-Air
Input ($/M tokens)$0.66$0.17
Output ($/M tokens)$1$0.98
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
QwQ 32B$0.76
GLM-4.5-Air$0.27

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
QwQ 32B
GLM-4.5-Air
43 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
QwQ 32B
GLM-4.5-Air
2.82s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GLM-4.5-Air takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 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, GLM-4.5-Air is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GLM-4.5-Air makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. QwQ 32B is strongest on Intelligence Index (13.4). GLM-4.5-Air leads on Intelligence Index (16.7).

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

Provider. Alibaba and Z AI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Z AI 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): QwQ 32B costs $34.80 ($418/year); GLM-4.5-Air costs $19.80 ($238/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): QwQ 32B ≈ $5.30/run, GLM-4.5-Air ≈ $2.81/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): QwQ 32B ≈ $232/run, GLM-4.5-Air ≈ $132/run. GLM-4.5-Air 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
13.416.7
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
QwQ 32B0 wins
1 winsGLM-4.5-Air

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B or GLM-4.5-Air?

GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.37/M tokens vs $0.74/M for QwQ 32B.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

GLM-4.5-Air wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for QwQ 32B. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GLM-4.5-Air generates tokens faster at 43 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, GLM-4.5-Air has lower time-to-first-token (2.82s vs —s).

When should I use QwQ 32B vs GLM-4.5-Air?

Choose based on your priorities: GLM-4.5-Air for lower cost, GLM-4.5-Air for stronger benchmark performance, and GLM-4.5-Air for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.