Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen Turbo
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 5.1× 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.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 37.4 to 22.2.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- Qwen Turbo 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 Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.20 |
| 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: 40.2 (#128), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen Turbo?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 5.1× 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 Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen Turbo share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.