# GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.6 Flash

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-qwen3-6-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.2 to 37.4.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 38.4 |
| Rank | 133 | 176 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.19 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $1.13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | — |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.