Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen Plus

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

40.9

Rank #132 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

36.7

Rank #204 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.6 leads 36.4 to 22.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 47.4% for GLM-4.6 and 63.3% for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6Qwen Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.936.7
Released2025-09-302024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.20
Results tracked2920

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.9 (#137), Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding14491328
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1339—
SciCode38.4%—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.1 (#60), Qwen Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

GLM-4.6: 23.1 (#168), Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%63.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14401317
CritPt1.1%—
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 36.4 (#115), Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Math14311326
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%1.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—17.8%
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.6 (#118), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Expert14321328
GPQA Diamond—48.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 53.6 (#62), Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English14261310
LMArena Chinese15001347
LMArena Japanese13941251
LMArena Russian14181323
LMArena French1459—
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 74.5 (#93), Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14101303

Long Context GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#91), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query14231325

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 61.3 (#86), Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen Plus
LMArena Text14401326
LMArena Creative Writing14111293
LMArena Multi-Turn14271336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Qwen Plus?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or Qwen Plus?

Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.6 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.9 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper