GLM-5.1 vs Qwen3.7-Max in finance

Every finance benchmark where both have a score (Zhipu AI and Qwen). Data refreshed 2 Nov 2026.

Shared benchmarks
2
GLM-5.1 only
1
Qwen3.7-Max only
0

Shared benchmarks, side by side

Each benchmark is drawn on its own scale. Bars are not comparable across rows.

  • GLM-5.1
  • Qwen3.7-Max

  • IPO Finance Agent mean rubric score %, higher is better

    GLM-5.1:79.7 (better)
    Qwen3.7-Max:78.9

  • PortBench CEPS (0-1), higher is better

    GLM-5.1:0.384 (better)
    Qwen3.7-Max:0.292

  • PortBench mean QA score (0-1), higher is better

    GLM-5.1:0.757
    Qwen3.7-Max:0.819 (better)
Benchmark
GLM-5.1
Qwen3.7-Max

4 benchmarks, 3 scored for both. Bold marks the better score where both have one.

IPO Finance Agentmean rubric score %, higher is better
79.7
Paper Table 1 (Reported by the authors, 30 Jun 2026)
78.9
Paper Table 1 (Reported by the authors, 30 Jun 2026)
PortBenchCEPS (0-1), higher is better
0.384
Paper Table 2 (Reported by the authors, 9 Oct 2026)
0.292
Paper Table 2 (Reported by the authors, 9 Oct 2026)
PortBenchmean QA score (0-1), higher is better
0.757
Paper Table 1 (Reported by the authors, 9 Oct 2026)
0.819
Paper Table 1 (Reported by the authors, 9 Oct 2026)
KTD-Fintotal return %, higher is better
-3.5
Paper Table 4 (Reported by the authors, 27 May 2026)
Not scored

Scores from different benchmarks use different scales and are not added up. Settings can differ between sources; see each leaderboard for details.