Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 61.6 to 38.0.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.351.5
Released2025-12-082026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output33K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$7.50
Results tracked1233

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding13901498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13681483
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%
LMArena Math—1490

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert13711488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13591474
LMArena Chinese14251530
LMArena Russian13401484

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following13521460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query13581482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13771476
LMArena Creative Writing13471449
LMArena Multi-Turn13601481
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.7 Max?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.7 Max share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper