Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Grok 4
Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and Grok 4 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 leads 63.1 to 41.3.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 48.1 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2025-07-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 48 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1408 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 79.6% |
| WeirdML | — | 45.7% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 63% |
| GDPval | — | 21.1% |
| Cybench | — | 43% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 47.3% |
| BALROG | — | 43.6% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1142 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 66.6% |
Reasoning Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1409 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 16% |
| SimpleBench | — | 60.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 66.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 28% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.44 |
| ForecastBench | — | 60.9 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 60.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1422 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 19.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1415 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 85.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |
Multimodal GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | 1210 |
| GeoBench | — | 45% |
Multilingual Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1403 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1427 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1410 |
| LMArena French | — | 1418 |
| LMArena German | — | 1429 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1377 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1420 |
Instruction Following Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1387 |
| IFEval | — | 94.9% |
Long Context Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 94.4% |
Writing & Preference Grok 4 leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Grok 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1397 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 76.9% |
| WildBench | — | 79.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Grok 4?
Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Grok 4 better for coding?
Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Grok 4 share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.