Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Mercury 2.5
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6V leads 27.6 to 22.4.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 260K |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 4 |
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 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Mercury 2.5?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.
Is GLM-4.6V or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.