Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 46 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- GLM-4.6 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
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
GLM-4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.12 to 51.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.63.4 | Margin→ 84.8 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.4 |
| Multimodal | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.6Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.6Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.6Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.6200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 76.9% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.65% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 3.09% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 33.1% | 35.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.0% | 31.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 63.2% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.2% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -31.6% | -21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 20.8% | 18.9% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 66.1% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 3.819% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.128% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 36.7% | 64.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
GLM-4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.12 to 51.47.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 3.4. GLM-4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.