Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 34.1.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | IBM |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 33.2 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1149 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1138 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1159 |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1131 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1068 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1139 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1063 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1116 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1155 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1127 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1116 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1099 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.