Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #122 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 35.9.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.038.8
Released2025-07-272026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output98K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.13
Results tracked2713

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
ALE-Bench344.82326.4
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)54.2%—
WeirdML40.6%—
LMArena Coding1434—
AlgoTune1.52—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench—35.2%
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%—
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1429—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LMCA—31%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.26

Math Too close to call

GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math1427—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
Humanity's Last Exam8.3%—
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
Confabulations11.3%—
LMArena Expert1433—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1417—
LMArena Chinese1465—
LMArena French1418—
LMArena German1407—
LMArena Japanese1415—
LMArena Korean1380—
LMArena Russian1414—
LMArena Spanish1454—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
Fiction.LiveBench58.3%—
LMArena Longer Query1412—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1430—
LMArena Creative Writing1395—
Short-Story Creative Writing73.4%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1343—
LMArena Multi-Turn1415—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper