Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs GLM 4.6

GLM 4.6 leads DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 18.5 to 14.8, and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs 2.2x less per output token ($1.0142 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 41 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus Replace GLM 4.6
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.0142
19
GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
22
vs boards won of 41 shared

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 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 Terminus has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($1.0142 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Model ADeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeekNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.6Z.ai8.8/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
41
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus only
4
GLM 4.6 only
28
Like-for-like categories
8 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.

At a glance

Coding index
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus not benchmarked, GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 39.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 37.1% against GLM 4.6 76.9%, 39.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus $1.0142 against GLM 4.6 $2.20 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusBarsGLM 4.6Ties
Coding33
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning32
Math21
Knowledge32
Web design52
General310
All shared boards1922
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index33
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured68.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1341Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Coding Index43.545.8GLM 4.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured3.1%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)79.8%69.5%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
SciCode38.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%28.8%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Terminal-BenchNot measured24.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-Bench745.2340.8DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: coding14251449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: software and IT14261455GLM 4.6
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1350Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index14.818.5GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
AA Agentic Index6.8Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1029Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1096Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1084Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1180Only GLM 4.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom37.1%76.9%GLM 4.6
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured72.4%Only GLM 4.6 measured
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured48.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured74.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%78.0%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)16.4%14.5%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: hard prompts14261440GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1432Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14321445GLM 4.6
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%45.7%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
AIMENot measured92.7%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured89.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math Index89.786.0DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)89.7%86.0%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: math14021432GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1447Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
MMLU ProNot measured82.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.6%Only GLM 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured56.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured66.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.1%82.9%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: science14511456GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14681455DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: legal and government14571448DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: business and finance14141416GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index52
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
Design Arena: websites11871174DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: UI components11821148DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: game dev11311151GLM 4.6
Design Arena: data viz11671161DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: 3D11411129DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: all code categories11751166DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: SVG10651109GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index310
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
IFBench57.0%43.4%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.3%54.0%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
DTBench81.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMCA28.6%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text14191440GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: instruction following14041410GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: creative writing14031412GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: English14291449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: non-English14081426GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1499Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1447Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1393Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1400Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1459Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1436Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Russian14351418DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: Polish14271447GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn14111427GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: longer queries14221422GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: writing and language14091415GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13911409GLM 4.6
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
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6Leader
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 Terminus$0.0008Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.018Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.071Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 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.

Specifications of DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6
SpecificationDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusZ.ai GLM 4.6
MakerDeepSeekZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2025September 30, 2025
Context window164K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.3063$0.60
Output $/Mtok$1.0142$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked8.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 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 Terminus has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($1.0142 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or GLM 4.6?

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs $0.3063 per million input tokens and $1.0142 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 Terminus or GLM 4.6?

GLM 4.6, with 205K tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs GLM 4.6 comparison based on?

41 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus'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.

Compare next