# GLM-4.6V vs Magistral Medium

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 34.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-magistral-medium
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Magistral Medium in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6V leads 26.5 to 8.7.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $5 for Magistral Medium.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 34.8 |
| Rank | 133 | 224 |
| Context | 128K | 128K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $5 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- Magistral Medium: 38.6 (#161)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1319 |
| SciCode | — | 39.2% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- Magistral Medium: 8.7 (#342)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1267 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 16.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 6.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Magistral Medium: 32.4 (#187)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1249 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- Magistral Medium: 32.9 (#199)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1222 |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- Magistral Medium: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- Magistral Medium: 39.8 (#219)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1232 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1225 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1224 |
| LMArena French | — | 1268 |
| LMArena German | — | 1248 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1176 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1125 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1269 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- Magistral Medium: 66.2 (#207)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1254 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- Magistral Medium: 39.3 (#178)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1295 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- Magistral Medium: 46.5 (#214)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Magistral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1255 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1245 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1275 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Magistral Medium?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 34.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Magistral Medium?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Magistral Medium lists at $2 and $5.

### Is GLM-4.6V or Magistral Medium better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 128K tokens.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Magistral Medium share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Medium has 22.