Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen1.5-14B
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.7 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 7 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 33.6.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 17 |
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1138 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1113 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1125 |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1147 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1046 |
| LMArena French | — | 1116 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1102 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen1.5-14B?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen1.5-14B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.