Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6 leads 61.1 to 49.4.
- GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 38.8 |
| 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 | 14 |
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1449 | 1314 |
| 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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 24.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 72.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1440 | 1299 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 47.4% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
Math GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | 1298 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1289 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.5% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1426 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1499 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1393 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1419 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1436 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1410 | 1275 |
Long Context GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1440 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.