Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Magistral Small
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6V leads 27.6 to 6.8.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $1.50 for Magistral Small.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 30.2 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2025-06-10 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 128K |
| Max output | 33K | 40K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $1.50 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 10 |
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), Magistral Small: 38.4 (#176)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 35.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Magistral Small: 6.8 (#350)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 6.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| DTBench | — | 61.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 133.19 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Magistral Small: 26.2 (#261)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 30% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Magistral Small: 30.9 (#223)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Magistral Small: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Small |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Magistral Small?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Magistral Small?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Magistral Small lists at $0.50 and $1.50.
Is GLM-4.6V or Magistral Small better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 38.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 128K tokens.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Magistral Small share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Small has 10.