Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Mercury 3

Mercury 3 costs 6.3x less per output token than GLM 4.6 ($0.35 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
0
Mercury 3Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.35
5
vs boards won of 5 shared

GLM 4.6 or Mercury 3: which to pick

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mercury 3 for output tokens 6.3x cheaper ($0.35 vs $2.20 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Shared results
5
GLM 4.6 only
64
Mercury 3 only
0
Like-for-like categories
1 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
GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks, Mercury 3 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 9.7 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: UI components: GLM 4.6 1148 against Mercury 3 1270, 15.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Mercury 3 $0.35 per million output tokens, 6.3x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Mercury 3 1M.

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
CategoryGLM 4.6BarsMercury 3Ties
Web design05
All shared boards05
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev1341Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AA Coding Index45.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-Bench340.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding1449Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
AA Intelligence Index18.5Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
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
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1029Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1096Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1084Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1180Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
BrowseComp-Plus48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
GPQA Diamond74.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: expert1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1445Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark45.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
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
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
AIME92.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math Index86.0Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: math1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1447Not measuredOnly 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
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
MMLU Pro82.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)56.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: science1456Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1448Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1416Not measuredOnly 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 index05
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
Design Arena: websites11741244Mercury 3
Design Arena: UI components11481270Mercury 3
Design Arena: game dev11511227Mercury 3
Design Arena: data viz11611207Mercury 3
Design Arena: 3D1129Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categories11661240Mercury 3
Design Arena: SVG1109Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
IFBench43.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1410Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: English1449Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1426Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1499Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: German1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1393Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1400Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: French1459Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1436Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1418Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1427Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1422Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1409Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 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 GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mercury 3Leader
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

GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request
Mercury 3$0.0003Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Mercury 3$0.0060Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Mercury 3$0.024Fits in one request

Mercury 3 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 GLM 4.6 and Mercury 3
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6Inception Mercury 3
MakerZ.aiInception
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025October 16, 2026
Context window205K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.10
Output $/Mtok$2.20$0.35
Coding index8.8Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Mercury 3 for coding?

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 3 for output tokens 6.3x cheaper ($0.35 vs $2.20 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Mercury 3?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Mercury 3 costs $0.10 and $0.35. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Mercury 3?

Mercury 3, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Mercury 3 comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Mercury 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next