Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen2.5-Max
GLM-4.6V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 40.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen2.5-Max?
GLM-4.6V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 40.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.9 vs 41.8); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen2.5-Max share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.