Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.6 27B
GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.6 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 37.4.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.6 27B?
GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.6 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 27B?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.