Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.12/100
Margin
10.1pts
winning →
65.2/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 46 to Qwen3.6 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
GLM-4.6 only
0
Qwen3.6 Plus only
46
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6 Plus 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

Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 55.12. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 60.5 against 3.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 3.819% to 26.207%.

Qwen3.6 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 scores and score margins for GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.6 Plus
CategoryGLM-4.6ΔQwen3.6 Plus
MathGLM-4.63.4Margin→ 57.1Qwen3.6 Plus60.5
AgenticGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus61.6
CodingGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus70.3
ReasoningGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus62.0
KnowledgeGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus57.1
MultilingualGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus84.7
MultimodalGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus79.8
Inst. FollowingGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus82.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GLM-4.6B · Qwen3.6 Plus

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 3.819%B 26.207%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 22.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.6 scored 3.819%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.128%B 8.333%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 6.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.6 scored 2.128%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGLM-4.6Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGLM-4.6Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGLM-4.6Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGLM-4.6200KQwen3.6 Plus1MQwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 76.9%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —61.6%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —58.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —57.2%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —70.7%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —44.3%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —41.5%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —39.8%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —48.2%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —74.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —74.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —31.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1135Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —50.60%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 3.09%25.56%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 33.1%40.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —78.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —56.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —87.1%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —54.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 26.3%69.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.0%2.9%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AI-NeedleSource —68.3%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —62%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 23.0%39.6%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 63.2%88.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 5.2%25.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -31.6%2.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 20.8%26.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 66.1%32.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.4%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.3%Not comparable
HLESource —28.8%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 3.819%26.207%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.128%8.333%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AIME26Source —95.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —96.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —94.6%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —87.8%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —83.8%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —57.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMMUSource —86.0%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —78.8%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —68.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource —81.5%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —78.0%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1249Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 36.7%75.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —75.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 55.12. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 3.819% and 26.207%.

Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 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

Z.AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.