Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Mercury 2
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.1 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 Mercury 2 in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.6V leads 40.9 to 33.5.
- Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 39.1 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-02-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 128K |
| Max output | 33K | 50K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.75 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 17 |
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), Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1391 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1171 |
| SciCode | — | 38.7% |
| WeirdML | — | 43.2% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 785.58 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1362 |
| CritPt | — | 0.8% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1358 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1304 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1329 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1330 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1355 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1289 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1358 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Mercury 2?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Mercury 2?
Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.
Is GLM-4.6V or Mercury 2 better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 128K tokens.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Mercury 2 share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2 has 17.