Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Plus in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 38.0.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1467 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1461 |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 670.15 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1449 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.65 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1454 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1477 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1434 |
| LMArena French | — | 1455 |
| LMArena German | — | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1432 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1425 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1438 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 Plus?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.9 vs 40.8); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.