Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.12/100
Margin
12.1pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 58 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
GLM-4.6 only
3
Qwen3.7 Plus only
58
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 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 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 55.12. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 3.4.

Qwen3.7 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGLM-4.6ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathGLM-4.63.4Margin→ 89.5Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MultilingualGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingGLM-4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Operational comparison

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

MetricGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGLM-4.6Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGLM-4.6Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGLM-4.6Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGLM-4.6200KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 76.9%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 3.09%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 33.1%45.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 26.3%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.0%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 23.0%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 63.2%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 5.2%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -31.6%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 20.8%22.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 66.1%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 3.819%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.128%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 36.7%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 55.12.

Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 3.4. GLM-4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

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.