Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Mistral Nemo

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 3.0× 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.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Mistral Nemo Mistral AI

26.4

Rank #337 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 28.5.
  • Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and Mistral Nemo specifications
GLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index41.326.4
Released2025-12-082024-07-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K128K
Max output33K128K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$0.15
Results tracked1210

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 Nemo: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Coding1390—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—27.6%
BALROG—17.6%

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Hard Prompts1368—
DTBench—48.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.68
PIQA—83.5%

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
MATH Level 5—10.8%
GSM8K—84.2%

Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
GPQA Diamond—29.9%
LMArena Expert1371—
BoolQ—82.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Mistral Nemo: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual Not comparable

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

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Non-English1359—
LMArena Chinese1425—
LMArena Russian1340—

Instruction Following Not comparable

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

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Instruction Following1352—

Long Context Not comparable

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

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Longer Query1358—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMistral Nemo
LMArena Text1377—
LMArena Creative Writing1347—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—881
LMArena Multi-Turn1360—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Mistral Nemo?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 3.0× 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 Mistral Nemo?

Mistral Nemo is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 128K tokens.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Nemo has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper