Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs GPT-5.4 nano
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 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and GPT-5.4 nano share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 15 to GPT-5.4 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GLM-4.6 only
- 0
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 nano 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 nano is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.79 to 55.12. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 nano's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 21 against 3.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 3.819% to 25.860%.
GPT-5.4 nano 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 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.63.4 | Margin→ 17.6 | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 |
| Multimodal | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 |
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 25.860%Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 22FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 25.860%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.128%B 6.250%Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 4.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 6.250%. GPT-5.4 nano 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 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.6Not available | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.6Not available | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.6Not available | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.6200K | GPT-5.4 nano400K | GPT-5.4 nano lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 76.9% | 76% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 39% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 35.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.5% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 24.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 30.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1100 | Not comparable |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.0% | 38.2% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 63.2% | 81.7% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.2% | 26.5% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -31.6% | -29.5% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 20.8% | 25.4% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 66.1% | 73.6% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 37.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 nano wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 36.7% | 75.9% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.6 or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 55.12. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 3.819% and 25.860%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 21 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.