Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs GLM-4.6
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.6 leads 39.1 to 10.2.
- GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 41.4 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2025-09-30 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 205K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.20 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6 leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 55.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1340 |
| SciCode | — | 38.4% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1449 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 340.82 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 24.5% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 72.4% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 47.4% |
| CritPt | — | 1.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1440 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math GLM-4.6 leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1432 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 3.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1431 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1426 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1499 |
| LMArena French | — | 1459 |
| LMArena German | — | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1419 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1436 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1410 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1422 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1440 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1411 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1411 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1427 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-4.6?
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-4.6 better for coding?
GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-4.6 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6 has 29.