Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen Plus
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 37.4 to 27.4.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128), Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1328 |
Reasoning Qwen Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1317 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1328 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1347 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1323 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1251 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1303 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1325 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1336 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen Plus?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen Plus?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen Plus better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen Plus share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.