Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs GLM-4.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
Margin
0.4pts
← winning
55.12/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GLM-4.6 share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 3 to GLM-4.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
27
GLM-4.6 only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.6 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.47 versus 55.12. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 3.4.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.6.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GLM-4.6
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔGLM-4.6
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0Margin← 90.6GLM-4.63.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6MarginNo overlapGLM-4.6Not measured
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8MarginNo overlapGLM-4.6Not measured
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0MarginNo overlapGLM-4.6Not measured

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputGLM-4.6Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MGLM-4.6200KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 80.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 49%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%76.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1299—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%33.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —3.09%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%26.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
CritPtSource 10.0%0.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%23.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%63.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%5.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%-31.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%20.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%66.1%GLM-4.6 leads
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%—Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —3.819%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —2.128%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GLM-4.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%36.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 55.12.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.6?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 3.4. GLM-4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.