Model comparison
GLM-5 vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 46.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 3 categories and Grok 4.6 in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 27.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 4.9% for GLM-5 and 67.1% for Grok 4.6.
- GLM-5 is cheaper at $1 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- Grok 4.6 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 46.1 | 56.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-11 | 2026-08-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | 500K |
| Max output | 131K | 500K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.20 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 45 | 49 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | 1617 |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | 67.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | 1,508 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 48% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 41.4% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 25.3% |
| SciCode | — | 56.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads
GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | 9,047 |
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 65.3% |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 17.2% |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | 67.1% |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | 75.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | 80% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | 87.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 1447 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.83 | 156.44 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| CritPt | — | 19.7% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 34% |
| DTBench | — | 97.3% |
| LMCA | — | 48.5% |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | 99.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 31.7% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 51% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | 94% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1467 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5: —, Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |
Multilingual Too close to call
GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1445 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1428 | 1431 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1454 |
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads
GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)
| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1425 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5 better than Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 46.1 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5 costs 1.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5 or Grok 4.6?
GLM-5 is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is GLM-5 or Grok 4.6 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 49.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.6 does, with 500K tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Grok 4.6 share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.