Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Llama 3.2 90B
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 37.4 to 21.7.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 27.3% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.5 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.6% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.4% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41% |
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |
| MMLU | — | 80.3% |
Multimodal GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | 1000 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Llama 3.2 90B?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Llama 3.2 90B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.