Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen1.5-110B
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 33.6 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 7 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.8 to 38.1.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 33.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| 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), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1168 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1185 |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1144 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1118 |
| LMArena French | — | 1150 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1141 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1158 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen1.5-110B?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen1.5-110B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.