Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs GPT-5.4 mini
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); GPT-5.4 mini #75 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and GPT-5.4 mini share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 16 to GPT-5.4 mini.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GLM-4.6 only
- 0
- GPT-5.4 mini only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 mini 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 14 shared benchmark results across 6 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
GPT-5.4 mini has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.77 versus 55.12. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GPT-5.4 mini's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 21.7 against 3.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 3.819% to 28.280%.
GPT-5.4 mini gives you the larger context window at 400K, 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 | GLM-4.6 | Δ | GPT-5.4 mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.63.4 | Margin→ 18.3 | GPT-5.4 mini21.7 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 mini65.7 |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 mini47.8 |
| Multimodal | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 mini76.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 3.819%B 28.280%Winner: GPT-5.4 miniΔ 24.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%; GPT-5.4 mini scored 28.280%. GPT-5.4 mini wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.128%B 2.080%Winner: GLM-4.6Δ 0FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%; GPT-5.4 mini scored 2.080%. GLM-4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 mini | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.6Not available | GPT-5.4 mini$0.75 input / $4.5 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.6Not available | GPT-5.4 mini201 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.6Not available | GPT-5.4 mini3.85 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.6200K | GPT-5.4 mini400K | GPT-5.4 mini lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 76.9% | 83.3% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 60% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 72.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 42.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 30.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 33.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1171 | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.0% | 40.0% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 63.2% | 87.5% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.2% | 26.6% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -31.6% | -18.7% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 20.8% | 37.5% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 66.1% | 89.8% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 28.2% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 mini wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 36.7% | 73.3% | GPT-5.4 mini leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.6 or GPT-5.4 mini?
GPT-5.4 mini is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.77 to 55.12. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 3.819% and 28.280%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or GPT-5.4 mini?
GPT-5.4 mini has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 21.7 versus 3.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.