Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.5V vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5V scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 37.5.
  • GLM-4.5V is cheaper at $0.60 / $1.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 64K.
  • GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.847.5
Released2025-08-112026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window64K1M
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$1.80$3
Results tracked1537

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding13471467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13341449
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.65

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math13541450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert13531454
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92), Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Vision1154—

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English13031424
LMArena Chinese13371477
LMArena Russian12981434
LMArena Spanish13361432
LMArena French—1455
LMArena German—1452
LMArena Japanese—1389
LMArena Korean—1379

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following13111425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query13041439
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text13331437
LMArena Creative Writing12951404
LMArena Multi-Turn13321438

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-4.5V is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $1.80 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.

Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 64K.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper