Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3-4B

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Qwen3-4B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.9

Rank #264 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3-4B in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.6 leads 39.1 to 29.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 72.4% for GLM-4.6 and 35.7% for Qwen3-4B.

Side by side

GLM-4.6 and Qwen3-4B specifications
GLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.431.9
Released2025-09-302025-04-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked296

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Qwen3-4B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1340—
SciCode38.4%—
LMArena Coding1449—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Qwen3-4B: 27.6 (#100)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%35.7%
Terminal-Bench24.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Qwen3-4B: 19.2 (#268)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
CritPt1.1%—
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1440—

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Qwen3-4B: 29.7 (#240)

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Qwen3-4B: 33.0 (#208)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%5.7%
GPQA Diamond—52.3%
LMArena Expert1431—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Qwen3-4B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
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), Qwen3-4B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
LMArena Instruction Following1410—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Qwen3-4B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
LMArena Longer Query1422—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Qwen3-4B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3-4B
LMArena Text1440—
LMArena Creative Writing1411—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—
LMArena Multi-Turn1427—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen3-4B?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Qwen3-4B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-4B has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper