# GLM-4.6V vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.6V leads 48.6 to 38.1.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 137 | 191 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1291 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1272 |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1295 |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1242 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1247 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1252 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.6V or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.