DeepSeek V3.1 vs GLM 4.6
GLM 4.6 leads DeepSeek V3.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 18.5 to 13.7, and DeepSeek V3.1 costs 1.5x less per output token ($1.50 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 9 benchmarks have a result for both.
DeepSeek V3.1 or GLM 4.6: which to pick
Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick DeepSeek V3.1 for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($1.50 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by Kagi LLM Benchmark, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 9
- DeepSeek V3.1 only
- 2
- GLM 4.6 only
- 60
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 4.6
GLM 4.6 leads, 18.5 against 13.7.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GLM 4.6 has a GPQA Diamond result, 74.5%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GLM 4.6 has a AIME result, 92.7%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GLM 4.6 has a MMLU Pro result, 82.2%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 4.6
GLM 4.6 leads, 1174 against 1123.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
GLM 4.6
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens against 164K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
DeepSeek V3.1
DeepSeek V3.1 $0.0013, GLM 4.6 $0.0017 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- DeepSeek V3.1 not benchmarked, GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Web design, 8.8 points apart on average over 7 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Design Arena: SVG: DeepSeek V3.1 967 against GLM 4.6 1109, 17.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- DeepSeek V3.1 $1.50 against GLM 4.6 $2.20 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
- Context window
- DeepSeek V3.1 takes 164K tokens, GLM 4.6 205K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | DeepSeek V3.1 | Bars | GLM 4.6 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 7 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 8 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | Not measured | 68.2% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1341 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 45.8 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 81.0% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.1% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 69.5% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 28.8% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 24.5% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 340.8 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1449 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1455 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1350 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 13.7 | 18.5 | GLM 4.6 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 1029 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1096 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1084 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | Not measured | 1180 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 76.9% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 72.4% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| BrowseComp-Plus | Not measured | 48.2% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 74.5% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 78.0% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 14.5% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1440 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1432 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1445 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.2% | 45.7% | DeepSeek V3.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 92.7% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | Not measured | 89.8% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 86.0 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 86.0% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1432 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1447 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 82.2% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.6% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 56.8% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 66.2% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | Not measured | 92.2% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 82.9% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1456 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1455 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1448 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1416 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1123 | 1174 | GLM 4.6 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1085 | 1148 | GLM 4.6 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1084 | 1151 | GLM 4.6 |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1095 | 1161 | GLM 4.6 |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1077 | 1129 | GLM 4.6 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1112 | 1166 | GLM 4.6 |
| Design Arena: SVG | 967 | 1109 | GLM 4.6 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 43.4% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 54.0% | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| DTBench | 82.7% | Not measured | Only DeepSeek V3.1 measured |
| LMCA | 24.3% | Not measured | Only DeepSeek V3.1 measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1440 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1410 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1412 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1449 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1426 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1499 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1447 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1393 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1400 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1459 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1436 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1418 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1447 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1427 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1422 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1415 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1409 | Only GLM 4.6 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.1 | GLM 4.6 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
DeepSeek V3.1 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
DeepSeek V3.1 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
DeepSeek V3.1 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | DeepSeek V3.1 | Z.ai GLM 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | August 21, 2025 | September 30, 2025 |
| Context window | 164K | 205K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.55 | $0.60 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $2.20 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 8.8 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is DeepSeek V3.1 better than GLM 4.6 for coding?
Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3.1 for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($1.50 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by Kagi LLM Benchmark, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.1 or GLM 4.6?
DeepSeek V3.1 costs $0.55 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek V3.1 or GLM 4.6?
GLM 4.6, with 205K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3.1 vs GLM 4.6 comparison based on?
9 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. DeepSeek V3.1's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.6's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.