# DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale vs GLM-4.6V

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v3-2-speciale-vs-glm-4-6v
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 46.0.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.58 / $1.68 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 39.7 | 41.3 |
| Rank | 162 | 137 |
| Context | 128K | 128K |
| Input $/M | $0.58 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $1.68 | $0.90 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 40.4 (#140)
- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 46.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1390 |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.9 (#73)
- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 52.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1368 |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —
- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1371 |

## Multimodal

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —
- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —
- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1340 |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —
- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1352 |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —
- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.0 (#222)
- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1347 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1276 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1360 |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better than GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale lists at $0.58 and $1.68.

### Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or GLM-4.6V better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.4 vs 40.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 128K tokens.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and GLM-4.6V share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.