Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 41.7 to 23.7.
- GLM-4.6 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2025-09-30 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1340 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1449 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 55.4% | — |
| SciCode | 38.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 340.82 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 24.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 72.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1440 | 1457 |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 47.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 87.2% |
| LMCA | — | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.24 |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | 4.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.5% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1426 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1499 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1419 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1436 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1410 | 1438 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1440 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
GLM-4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.