Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 38.0.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.345.3
Released2025-12-082026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output33K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$1.60
Results tracked1232

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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding13901473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SciCode—45.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13681460
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
LMArena Math—1466

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Expert13711467
GPQA Diamond—87.9%

Multimodal Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision11641279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English13591445
LMArena Chinese14251510
LMArena Russian13401457
LMArena French—1473
LMArena German—1471
LMArena Japanese—1413
LMArena Korean—1415
LMArena Spanish—1457

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following13521440

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query13581455

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text13771455
LMArena Creative Writing13471439
LMArena Multi-Turn13601460

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.

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

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper