GLM-5V-Turbo vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.

Agentic
Coding
Multimodal & Grounded
Reasoning
Knowledge
Instruction Following
Multilingual
Mathematics

GLM-5V-Turbo· Qwen3.6 Plus

Quick Verdict

Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5V-Turbo only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 58. 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 agentic, where it averages 62 against 58. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SimpleVQA, 78.2% to 67.3%.

GLM-5V-Turbo is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.20 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6 Plus. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while GLM-5V-Turbo is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-5V-Turbo.

Operational tradeoffs

Price$1.20 / $4.00Free*
SpeedN/AN/A
TTFTN/AN/A
Context200K1M

Decision framing

BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.

Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.

BenchmarkGLM-5V-TurboQwen3.6 Plus
AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins
BrowseComp51.9%
OSWorld-Verified62.3%62.5%
BrowseComp-VL51.9%
OSWorld62.3%
AndroidWorld75.7%
WebVoyager88.5%
Terminal-Bench 2.061.6%
Claw-Eval58.7%
QwenClawBench57.2%
QwenWebBench1502
TAU3-Bench70.7%
VITA-Bench44.3%
DeepPlanning41.5%
Toolathlon39.8%
MCP Atlas48.2%
MCP-Tasks74.1%
WideResearch74.3%
Coding
SWE-bench Verified78.8%
SWE-bench Pro56.6%
SWE Multilingual73.8%
LiveCodeBench v687.1%
NL2Repo37.9%
Multimodal & Grounded
Design2Code94.8%
Flame-VLM-Code93.8%
Vision2Web31.0%
ImageMining30.7%
MMSearch72.9%
MMSearch-Plus30.0%
SimpleVQA78.2%67.3%
Facts-VLM58.6%
V*89.0%
MMMU86.0%
MMMU-Pro78.8%
RealWorldQA85.4%
OmniDocBench 1.591.2%
Video-MME (with subtitle)87.8%
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)84.2%
MathVision88.0%
We-Math89.0%
DynaMath88.0%
MStar83.3%
ChatCVQA81.5%
MMLongBench-Doc62.0%
CC-OCR83.4%
AI2D_TEST94.4%
CountBench97.6%
RefCOCO (avg)93.5%
ODINW1351.8%
ERQA65.7%
VideoMMMU84.0%
MLVU (M-Avg)86.7%
ScreenSpot Pro68.2%
Reasoning
AI-Needle68.3%
LongBench v262%
Knowledge
GPQA90.4%
SuperGPQA71.6%
MMLU-Pro88.5%
MMLU-Redux94.5%
C-Eval93.3%
HLE28.8%
Instruction Following
IFEval94.3%
IFBench74.2%
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX84.7%
NOVA-6357.9%
INCLUDE85.1%
PolyMath77.4%
VWT2k-lite84.3%
MAXIFE88.2%
Mathematics
AIME2695.3%
HMMT Feb 202596.7%
HMMT Nov 202594.6%
HMMT Feb 202687.8%
MMAnswerBench83.8%
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, GLM-5V-Turbo or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SimpleVQA, where the scores are 78.2% and 67.3%.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5V-Turbo or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 58. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Last updated: April 2, 2026

Weekly LLM Benchmark Digest

Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.