# GLM-4.6V vs Qwen2.5-Max

> GLM-4.6V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 40.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 133 | 142 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- Qwen2.5-Max: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen2.5-Max?

GLM-4.6V and Qwen2.5-Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 40.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen2.5-Max share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.