Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-4.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
60.66/100
Margin
5.5pts
← winning
55.12/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported); GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro and GLM-4.6 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro; 14 to GLM-4.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
DeepSeek V4 Pro only
23
GLM-4.6 only
14
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.6 only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.66 to 55.12. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

DeepSeek V4 Pro's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 31.7 against 3.4.

GLM-4.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.6.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 outputGLM-4.6Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro1MGLM-4.6200KDeepSeek V4 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 69.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 46.3%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 50.28%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 17.1%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 76.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.1%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 69.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 3.09%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 33.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
MRCR 1MSource 44.7%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 35.6%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 26.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
MMLU-ProSource 82.9%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 45%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 75.8%Not comparable
GPQASource 72.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 72.9%Not comparable
HLESource 7.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 23.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 63.2%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 5.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -31.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 20.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 66.1%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 31.7%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 35.3%Not comparable
ApexSource 0.4%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 9.2%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 3.819%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.128%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProGLM-4.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 36.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.66 to 55.12.

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 31.7 versus 3.4. GLM-4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

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.