Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen Max
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.6V leads 40.2 to 30.3.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
- GLM-4.6V accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 34.4 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 33K |
| Max output | 33K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#288)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1288 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Qwen Max: 24.1 (#154)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1270 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen Max: 21.0 (#272)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1275 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#222)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1372 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Qwen Max: 42.0 (#197)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | 1254 |
| LMArena Russian | 1341 | 1274 |
| LMArena French | — | 1329 |
| LMArena German | — | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1141 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1290 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Qwen Max: 66.7 (#203)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1351 | 1262 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1289 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Qwen Max: 48.0 (#200)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1359 | 1277 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen Max?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen Max?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen Max better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.6V does, with 128K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen Max share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.