Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen2-72B
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 30.0 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 Qwen2-72B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 38.0 to 21.2.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 30.0 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-06-07 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 26 |
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), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1196 |
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1191 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.28 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1171 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
| MMLU | — | 82.4% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen2-72B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1240 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1169 |
| LMArena French | — | 1170 |
| LMArena German | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1169 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1181 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1192 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1196 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen2-72B?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen2-72B better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen2-72B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.