Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Hunyuan T1 20250711
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
TencentSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 6 categories and Hunyuan T1 20250711 in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads 28.5 to 23.7.
- GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Tencent |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-09-30 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 40.9 (#129)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1449 | 1390 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 55.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1340 | — |
| SciCode | 38.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 340.82 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Hunyuan T1 20250711: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 24.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 72.4% | — |
Reasoning Hunyuan T1 20250711 leads
GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 28.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1440 | 1399 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 47.4% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
Math Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.7 (#130)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | 1414 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 38.8 (#141)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1395 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.5% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 51.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1426 | 1395 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1499 | 1425 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1406 |
| LMArena Russian | 1419 | 1385 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | — |
| LMArena German | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1436 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 72.6 (#138)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1410 | 1374 |
Long Context GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 42.2 (#128)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1384 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Hunyuan T1 20250711: 59.5 (#109)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Hunyuan T1 20250711 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1440 | 1401 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6 better than Hunyuan T1 20250711?
Hunyuan T1 20250711 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6 or Hunyuan T1 20250711 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.1 vs 40.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Hunyuan T1 20250711 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan T1 20250711 has 13.