Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); Qwen3.5 Plus #138 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.5 Plus share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 1 to Qwen3.5 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- GLM-4.6 only
- 11
- Qwen3.5 Plus only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Plus only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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
GLM-4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.12 to 47.2. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 Plus 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 | GLM-4.6 | Δ | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.63.4 | Margin→ 12.9 | Qwen3.5 Plus16.3 |
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 21.034%Winner: Qwen3.5 PlusΔ 17.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 21.034%. Qwen3.5 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.128%B 2.083%Winner: GLM-4.6Δ 0FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 2.083%. 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 | Qwen3.5 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.6Not available | Qwen3.5 Plus$0.4 input / $2.4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.6Not available | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.6Not available | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.6200K | Qwen3.5 Plus1M | Qwen3.5 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.5 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
MathQwen3.5 Plus wins2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.5 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.5 Plus?
GLM-4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.12 to 47.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 3.819% and 21.034%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 16.3 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.