# GLM-4.6V vs Qwen Max

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.6V leads 40.9 to 30.7.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
- GLM-4.6V accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 34.7 |
| Rank | 137 | 230 |
| Context | 128K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $1.60 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $6.40 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
- Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1288 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
- Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1269 |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1275 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
- Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
- Qwen Max: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
- Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1254 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1274 |
| LMArena French | — | 1330 |
| LMArena German | — | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1142 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1290 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
- Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1262 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
- Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1288 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
- Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1277 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen Max?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen Max?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

### Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen Max better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.6V does, with 128K tokens against 33K.

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

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.