Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.3 to 38.0.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $1.49 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 14 |
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), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| DTBench | — | 73.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.7% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.93 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 37.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.