Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 54.4 to 27.6.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1674 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| SciCode | — | 53.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1496 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| DTBench | — | 92% |
| LMCA | — | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.41 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1499 |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1507 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
Multimodal Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1538 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | — | 1503 |
| LMArena German | — | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1461 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1492 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1479 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1489 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.8 Max?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.
Is GLM-4.6V or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Qwen3.8 Max share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.