Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen Plus

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 15 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Qwen Plus

Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Summary

They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.6 leads 39.1 to 23.3.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 47.4% for GLM-4.6 and 63.3% for Qwen Plus.
Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6 and Qwen Plus specifications
	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	41.4	37.1
Released	2025-09-30	2024-01-25
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	205K	1M
Max output	131K	33K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.60	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$2.20	$1.20
Results tracked	29	20

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), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding	1449	1328
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), Qwen Plus: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
Terminal-Bench	24.5%	—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	72.4%	—

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
Kagi LLM Benchmark	47.4%	63.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1440	1317
CritPt	1.1%	—
DTBench	—	81.1%
LMCA	—	24%

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Math	1432	1326
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	3.8%	1.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	17.8%
MATH Level 5	—	65.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	2.1%	—

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Expert	1431	1328
GPQA Diamond	—	48.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.5%	—

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English	1426	1310
LMArena Chinese	1499	1347
LMArena Japanese	1393	1251
LMArena Russian	1419	1323
LMArena French	1459	—
LMArena German	1447	—
LMArena Korean	1400	—
LMArena Spanish	1436	—

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following	1410	1303

Long Context GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query	1422	1324

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6	Qwen Plus
LMArena Text	1440	1326
LMArena Creative Writing	1411	1293
LMArena Multi-Turn	1427	1336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1411	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen Plus?

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Qwen Plus?

Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.6 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Qwen Plus share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.