GLM-5 vs Qwen3.7 Max (high)
Should you write with GLM-5 or Qwen3.7 Max (high)? On this page the only thing that changes is the model. Both wrote their own version of the scripts behind 10 of my What's AI videos, five drafts per script, and three judges from three model families scored every draft blind, with my finished script as the reference. GLM-5 leads overall, 82.8 to 80.8.
The verdict
Price barely moves here, $0.050 per script for GLM-5 against $0.055, so it's about the writing, and GLM-5 wins that. It ranks #66 to Qwen3.7 Max (high) at #89, and it leads by about four points on both Tone & Voice Match and Substance, Accuracy & Value, the two heaviest metrics in the score. Qwen3.7 Max (high) holds the target length better and returns scripts faster, but you won't get open weights from it. Worth knowing too: this high-effort Qwen setting ranks below Qwen3.7 Max's own default, so paying for extra reasoning doesn't buy better writing here.
Pick GLM-5 for stronger voice and substance scores at the same price, with open weights.
Pick Qwen3.7 Max (high) when length control and faster turnaround matter more than voice.
How to read these numbers
Overall vs Elo. Overall is the weighted rubric score. Elo compares each model's five-draft average with every other model's, script by script, and counts gaps inside run-to-run noise as draws, so it rewards winning often and can disagree with overall. My own scripts score 90.9 on the same rubric, not a literal 100. Right now 2 of 167 ranked configurations reach it. A model above that line writes at that level on this rubric. That's not the same as beating my script line for line.
Reading the Elo intervals. Each 95% range comes from resampling every model's recorded run scores on each task and re-ranking. Comparing these separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between two models: far apart is strong evidence, and overlap isn't a tie. The tasks stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new tasks (the long version).
Metric by metric: where the gap comes from
Blue is GLM-5, orange is Qwen3.7 Max (high), and the solid bar takes the metric. The weight under each name is how much it counts toward the overall. Weighted by how much each metric counts, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put GLM-5 ahead: it leads there by 4.1 points. If you care about one thing, say voice or length, go straight to that row.
Cost, speed, and consistency
Quality is half the decision. The other half is what each script costs you, how long you wait, and how often you get a bad draft. They cost about the same per script.
| GLM-5 | Qwen3.7 Max (high) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 82.8 | 80.8 |
| Writing Elo | 1692 | 1525 |
| Score spread across drafts (± overall std) | 2.400 | 2.190 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 0.050 | 0.055 |
| Avg time per script (min) | 3.1 | 1.7 |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
Green wins the row, and for spread, cost and time, lower wins. Cost is one script at recorded list prices, uncached and without judging, so your real bill will differ. Spread is how much the overall score moves across a model's drafts, and time is the average time to get one accepted script, retries included.
Want the script-by-script detail? Full scorecards: GLM-5 · Qwen3.7 Max (high). The whole scoring pipeline is on the methodology page.
← All comparisons