Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs GLM 4.6V

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads GLM 4.6V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 14.8 to 11.2, at about the same output price ($1.0142 vs $0.90 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 29 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus Replace GLM 4.6V
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.0142
29
GLM 4.6VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.90
0
vs boards won of 29 shared

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or GLM 4.6V: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for a larger context window (164K against 131K tokens).

Model ADeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeekNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.6VZ.aiNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
29
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus only
16
GLM 4.6V only
9
Like-for-like categories
7 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 4.6V not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 16.9 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run): DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 79.8% against GLM 4.6V 41.1%, 38.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus $1.0142 against GLM 4.6V $0.90 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus takes 164K tokens, GLM 4.6V 131K.

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 4.6VTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning40
Math20
Knowledge50
General120
All shared boards290
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
AA Coding Index43.5Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)79.8%41.1%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
SciCode38.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%14.4%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
ALE-Bench745.2Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: coding14251389DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: software and IT14261391DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.811.2DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
AA Agentic Index6.8Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom37.1%31.6%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.2%71.9%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)16.4%9.6%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: hard prompts14261368DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1371Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14321391DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1182Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1155Only GLM 4.6V measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
AA Math Index89.785.3DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)89.7%85.3%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: math1402Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.1%79.9%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: science14511389DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14681389DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: legal and government14581393DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: business and finance14161359DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
Design Arena: websites1187Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: UI components1180Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: game dev1131Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: data viz1168Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: 3D1141Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: all code categories1175Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Design Arena: SVG1065Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and GLM 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
IFBench57.0%30.1%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.3%48.7%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
DTBench81.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMCA28.6%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text14191376DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: instruction following14041350DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: creative writing14031347DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena VisionNot measured1164Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: English14291395DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: non-English14071359DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1425Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Russian14361339DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: Polish1427Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14111359DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: longer queries14231357DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: writing and language14101347DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13921343DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1179Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1217Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1171Only GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1113Only GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 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 4.6V
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusGLM 4.6VLeader
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 4.6V$0.0008Fits in one request

GLM 4.6V costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

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

GLM 4.6V costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.071Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.6V$0.069Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.6V 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 4.6V
SpecificationDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusZ.ai GLM 4.6V
MakerDeepSeekZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2025December 8, 2025
Context window164K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.3063$0.30
Output $/Mtok$1.0142$0.90
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus better than GLM 4.6V for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for a larger context window (164K against 131K tokens).

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

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs $0.3063 per million input tokens and $1.0142 per million output tokens; GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 and $0.90. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus or GLM 4.6V?

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus, with 164K tokens against 131K.

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

29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.6V's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next