# GLM-4.6V vs Qwen Plus

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 37.4 to 27.4.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 36.7 |
| Rank | 133 | 204 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1328 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1317 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1328 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- Qwen Plus: —

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

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1347 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1323 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1251 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1303 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1325 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1336 |

## FAQ

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

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

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

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

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

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.