Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Mercury 2.5

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 3 categories and Mercury 2.5 in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.6 leads 39.1 to 23.3.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
  • Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Inception
Noometry Index41.433.5
Released2025-09-302026-09-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K260K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.15
Results tracked294

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), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
SciCode38.4%38.5%
ALE-Bench340.82301.65
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1340—
LMArena Coding1449—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
CritPt1.1%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1440—

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
ProofBench—3%
LMArena Math1432—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—
LMArena Expert1431—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
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), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
LMArena Instruction Following1410—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
LMArena Longer Query1422—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Mercury 2.5
LMArena Text1440—
LMArena Creative Writing1411—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—
LMArena Multi-Turn1427—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Mercury 2.5?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.6 or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.1 vs 39.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Mercury 2.5 share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper