Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale vs GLM-4.6V

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

DeepSeek

39.7

Rank #162 Reported

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 46.0.
GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.58 / $1.68 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and GLM-4.6V specifications
	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
Provider	DeepSeek	Z.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index	39.7	41.3
Released	2025-12-01	2025-12-08
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	128K	128K
Max output	128K	33K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.58	$0.30
Output $ / M tokens	$1.68	$0.90
Results tracked	3	12

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 40.4 (#140), GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
WeirdML	46.7%	—
LMArena Coding	—	1390

Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.9 (#73), GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
SimpleBench	52.6%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1368

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Expert	—	1371

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Vision	—	1164

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Non-English	—	1359
LMArena Chinese	—	1425
LMArena Russian	—	1340

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1352

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Longer Query	—	1358

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.0 (#222), GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Text	—	1377
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1347
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1276	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1360

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better than GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale lists at $0.58 and $1.68.

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or GLM-4.6V better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.4 vs 40.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 128K tokens.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and GLM-4.6V share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.