Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.7 Flash
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 38.0.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- Qwen3.7 Flash 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 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.64 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.