Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Mistral Medium 3.1

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Mistral Medium 3.1

Mistral AI

31.9

Rank #266 Reported

Summary

The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6V leads 27.6 to 10.6.
GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
Mistral Medium 3.1 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and Mistral Medium 3.1 specifications
	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Mistral AI
Noometry Index	41.3	31.9
Released	2025-12-08	—
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	128K	131K
Max output	33K	105K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$0.90	$2
Results tracked	12	3

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Coding	1390	—

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
NYT Connections (extended)	—	6.5%
Thematic Generalization	—	20.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1368	—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Expert	1371	—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Vision	1164	—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Non-English	1359	—
LMArena Chinese	1425	—
LMArena Russian	1340	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Instruction Following	1352	—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Longer Query	1358	—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Text	1377	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1347	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	—	1476
LMArena Multi-Turn	1360	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mistral Medium 3.1 does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.