Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 42.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.0

Rank #123 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads 47.8 to 38.0.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $2 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.342.0
Released2025-12-082026-02-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output33K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$2
Results tracked1228

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), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.8 (#251)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Coding13901410
LMArena WebDev—1254
SciCode—29.3%

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 24.6 (#161)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Hard Prompts13681400
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles—10%
DTBench—80%
LMCA—29.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—142.52

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 39.9 (#97)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70%
LMArena Math—1404

Knowledge Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.8 (#79)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Expert13711408
GPQA Diamond—83.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.0 (#127)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English13591378
LMArena Chinese14251457
LMArena Russian13401376
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1367
LMArena Japanese—1325
LMArena Korean—1356
LMArena Spanish—1392

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 72.8 (#128)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following13521379

Long Context Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#127)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query13581389

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 57.9 (#124)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text13771395
LMArena Creative Writing13471346
LMArena Multi-Turn13601390

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 42.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $2.

Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper