Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 46.0 to 38.0.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 Plus.
- Qwen3.5 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 42.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-02-16 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 621.92 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 0.54 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 80.5% |
| LMCA | — | 36.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.78 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 21% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 25.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 19.8% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 12.4% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.5 Plus?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus lists at $0.40 and $2.40.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.5 Plus share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.