Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 57.6 to 35.5.
- GLM-4.5 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
- GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 98K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 41.1 (#121), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1472 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.5: —, Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 27.7 (#99), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1430 | 1457 |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 87.2% |
| LMCA | — | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.27 |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 36.3 (#119), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1465 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 35.5 (#172), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1476 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 53.0 (#74), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1436 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1423 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1444 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1406 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1382 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 74.3 (#100), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1437 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#196), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1457 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.5: 57.7 (#121), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.5 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
GLM-4.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 41.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.