Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

40.9

Rank #132 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #103 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5 Plus in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 47.9 to 36.4.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.942.3
Released2025-09-302026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$2.40
Results tracked2915

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 39.9 (#137), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
ALE-Bench340.82621.92
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1339—
SciCode38.4%—
LMArena Coding1449—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.1 (#60), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 23.1 (#168), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.0 (#67)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
CritPt1.1%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1440—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.79

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 36.4 (#115), Qwen3.5 Plus: 47.9 (#55)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%2.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1431—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 39.6 (#118), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#78)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%10.7%
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
LMArena Expert1432—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 53.6 (#62), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Non-English1426—
LMArena Chinese1500—
LMArena French1459—
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Japanese1394—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Russian1418—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 74.5 (#93), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1410—

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#91), Qwen3.5 Plus: 42.9 (#109)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1423—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 61.3 (#86), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1440—
LMArena Creative Writing1411—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—
LMArena Multi-Turn1427—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper