Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Muse Ember

Muse Ember leads GLM 4.6 on coding, 64.9 to 8.9 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Muse Ember costs 4.4x less per output token ($0.50 vs $2.20 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.20
0
Muse EmberMeta
Coding
64.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.50
3
vs boards won of 3 shared

GLM 4.6 or Muse Ember: which to pick

Pick Muse Ember for coding: it scores 64.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.9 for GLM 4.6.

GLM 4.6 is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Shared results
3
GLM 4.6 only
66
Muse Ember only
12
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 8.9 from 2 benchmarks, Muse Ember 64.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 53.3 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): GLM 4.6 3.1% against Muse Ember 83.7%, 80.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Muse Ember $0.50 per million output tokens, 4.4x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Muse Ember 1.05M.

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 4.6BarsMuse EmberTies
Coding03
All shared boards03
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev13431609Muse Ember
AA Coding Index45.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured39.4%Only Muse Ember measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%83.7%Muse Ember
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-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured40.9%Only Muse Ember measured
FrontierCode 2.0Not measured27.2%Only Muse Ember 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: ReactNot measured1616Only Muse Ember measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML13511621Muse Ember
Terminal-Bench 2.024.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
IntelligenceNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
Neither model has a result on 2 boards here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1003Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1088Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1072Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1180Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured38.2%Only Muse Ember measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured49.0%Only Muse Ember measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured25.0%Only Muse Ember measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured64.3%Only Muse Ember 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 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
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
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured25.1%Only Muse Ember measured
CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured39.0%Only Muse Ember measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: expert1433Not 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 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
AIME92.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.8%Not 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 work1448Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MathArena16.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
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
AA-OmniscienceNot measured7.7Only Muse Ember 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 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
Design Arena: websites1166Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: UI components1138Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: game dev1140Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: data viz1158Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: 3D1108Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1155Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: SVG1098Not 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 index21 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
Vals IndexNot measured60.5%Only Muse Ember measured
IFBench43.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
GDPval-AA764Not 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: Chinese1500Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: German1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1394Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1400Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: French1461Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1437Not 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 language1416Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1409Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 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 Muse Ember
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Muse EmberLeader
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
Muse Ember$0.0003Fits in one request

Muse Ember costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Muse Ember$0.0065Fits in one request

Muse Ember costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Muse Ember$0.025Fits in one request

Muse Ember 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 Muse Ember
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6Meta Muse Ember
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025November 9, 2026
Context window205K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.10
Output $/Mtok$2.20$0.50
Coding index8.964.9
Independent measurements behind it23
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Muse Ember for coding?

Pick Muse Ember for coding: it scores 64.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.9 for GLM 4.6. GLM 4.6 is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Muse Ember?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Muse Ember costs $0.10 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Muse Ember?

Muse Ember, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Muse Ember comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Muse Ember's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-4-6-vs-meta-muse-ember" title="GLM 4.6 vs Muse Ember, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-4-6-vs-meta-muse-ember">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 4.6 vs Muse Ember</a></p>