# GLM-4.6V vs QwQ-32B

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-qwq-32b
- 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 QwQ-32B in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 41.3.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 133 | 153 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)
- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)
- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1326 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)
- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)
- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1378 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1297 |
| LMArena French | — | 1337 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1278 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1353 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)
- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)
- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)
- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than QwQ-32B?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.6V or QwQ-32B better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and QwQ-32B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.