Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen-14B
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 27.6.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 18 |
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), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1071 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1077 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1031 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen-14B?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen-14B better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen-14B share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.