Z.AI: GLM 4 32B vs Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Compare Z.AI: GLM 4 32B by Zhipu AI against Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 by Qwen, in 8 community votes, z.ai: glm 4 32b wins 57% of head-to-head duels, context windows of 128K vs 131K, tested across 54 shared challenges.
Web Design: Z.AI: GLM 4 32B wins 67% of votes
Image Generation: Z.AI: GLM 4 32B and Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 are tied
Our Verdict
Z.AI: GLM 4 32BWinner
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Runner-up
Z.AI: GLM 4 32B has the edge overall. In 8 blind votes, Z.AI: GLM 4 32B wins 57% of the time.
Z.AI: GLM 4 32B particularly excels in Web Design. Z.AI: GLM 4 32B is 8.0x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Slight edge
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
Z.AI: GLM 4 32B
Input
$0.10
2.0× cheaper
Output
$0.10
8.0× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
Input
$0.20
Output
$0.80
Z.AI: GLM 4 32B is cheaper on both — 2.0× input, 8.0× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
48%
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 uses 103.6x more emoji
Z.AI: GLM 4 32B
Qwen: Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507
53%Vocabulary55%
15wSentence Length18w
0.83Hedging0.52
5.8Bold6.7
4.6Lists4.3
0.00Emoji1.04
0.35Headings0.92
0.04Transitions0.11
Based on 17 + 22 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
