Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3 Max

Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 5.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3 Max

Alibaba (Qwen)

43.7

Rank #87 Confirmed

Summary

They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 Max in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 Max leads 48.1 to 38.0.
GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $6 for Qwen3 Max.
Qwen3 Max accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and Qwen3 Max specifications
	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	41.3	43.7
Released	2025-12-08	2025-09-23
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	128K	262K
Max output	33K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.30	$1.20
Output $ / M tokens	$0.90	$6
Results tracked	12	33

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen3 Max: 43.0 (#93)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Coding	1390	1456
ALE-Bench	—	370.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3 Max: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
Vending-Bench 2	—	71.56

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3 Max: 22.6 (#190)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts	1368	1448
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	72.5%
NYT Connections (extended)	—	30.1%
Chess Puzzles	—	4%
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	5%
DTBench	—	82.1%
LMCA	—	28.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	142.38

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3 Max: 38.7 (#131)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	18.9%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	73.3%
LMArena Math	—	1446
MATH Level 5	—	97.1%

Knowledge Qwen3 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#78)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Expert	1371	1455
GPQA Diamond	—	72.6%
SimpleQA Verified	—	48.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3 Max: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Vision	1164	—

Multilingual Qwen3 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3 Max: 53.7 (#62)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Non-English	1359	1429
LMArena Chinese	1425	1478
LMArena Russian	1340	1428
LMArena French	—	1449
LMArena German	—	1463
LMArena Japanese	—	1397
LMArena Korean	—	1399
LMArena Spanish	—	1462

Instruction Following Qwen3 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3 Max: 74.8 (#87)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Instruction Following	1352	1419

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#134)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Longer Query	1358	1438
Fiction.LiveBench	—	66.7%
CL-bench	—	14.5%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 Max leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3 Max: 62.4 (#76)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.6V	Qwen3 Max
LMArena Text	1377	1439
LMArena Creative Writing	1347	1402
LMArena Multi-Turn	1360	1446

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3 Max?

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

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Max lists at $1.20 and $6.

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

Qwen3 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Max does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

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

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