Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Plus in 7 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 40.2.
  • GLM-4.6 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.447.5
Released2025-09-302026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$3
Results tracked2937

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena WebDev13401461
SciCode38.4%40.7%
LMArena Coding14491467
ALE-Bench340.82670.15
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
CritPt1.1%2.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14401449
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.65

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math14321450
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%8.3%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert14311454
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—

Multilingual Too close to call

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English14261424
LMArena Chinese14991477
LMArena French14591455
LMArena German14471452
LMArena Japanese13931389
LMArena Korean14001379
LMArena Russian14191434
LMArena Spanish14361432

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14101425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14221439
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text14401437
LMArena Creative Writing14111404
LMArena Multi-Turn14271438
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GLM-4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.

Is GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.1 vs 40.8); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper