Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Magistral Small

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Magistral Small Mistral AI

30.2

Rank #296 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 4 categories and Magistral Small in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6 leads 23.7 to 6.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 47.4% for GLM-4.6 and 6.3% for Magistral Small.
  • Magistral Small is cheaper at $0.50 / $1.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
  • GLM-4.6 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-4.6Magistral Small
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index41.430.2
Released2025-09-302025-06-10
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K128K
Max output131K40K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.50
Results tracked2910

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Magistral Small: 38.4 (#176)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
SciCode38.4%35.2%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1340—
LMArena Coding1449—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Magistral Small: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Magistral Small: 6.8 (#350)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%6.3%
CritPt1.1%0.3%
ARC-AGI-2—0%
ARC-AGI-1—5%
Chess Puzzles—3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1440—
DTBench—61.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—133.19

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Magistral Small: 26.2 (#261)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—30%
LMArena Math1432—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Magistral Small: 30.9 (#223)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
GPQA Diamond—56.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—
LMArena Expert1431—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Magistral Small: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
LMArena Non-English1426—
LMArena Chinese1499—
LMArena French1459—
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Japanese1393—
LMArena Korean1400—
LMArena Russian1419—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Magistral Small: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
LMArena Instruction Following1410—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Magistral Small: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
LMArena Longer Query1422—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Magistral Small: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Magistral Small
LMArena Text1440—
LMArena Creative Writing1411—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—
LMArena Multi-Turn1427—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Magistral Small?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Magistral Small?

Magistral Small is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.6 or Magistral Small better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.6 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Magistral Small share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Small has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper