Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads GLM 4.6 on coding, 22.6 to 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 15.0x less per output token ($0.147 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
6
Nemotron 3.5 LightningNVIDIA
Coding
22.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.147
2
vs boards won of 8 shared

GLM 4.6 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: which to pick

Pick Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding: it scores 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6.

Pick GLM 4.6 for work measured by AA Coding Index or Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Shared results
8
GLM 4.6 only
61
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
12
Like-for-like categories
5 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, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 12.1 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AA Coding Index: GLM 4.6 45.8 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 26.8, 19.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.147 per million output tokens, 15.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 262K.

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 4.6BarsNemotron 3.5 LightningTies
Coding21
Intelligence10
Reasoning20
Knowledge10
General01
All shared boards62
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index21
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev1341Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AA Coding Index45.826.8GLM 4.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%0.0%GLM 4.6
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured3.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured10.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured29.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
SciCodeNot measured32.1%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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-Bench340.8769.2Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
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 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Intelligence Index18.512.9GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured3.5Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
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
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured18.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.6%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured17.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
GPQA Diamond74.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%74.3%GLM 4.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.5%10.6%GLM 4.6
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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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%54.2%GLM 4.6
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 designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
Design Arena: websites1174Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: UI components1148Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: game dev1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: data viz1161Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: 3D1129Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1166Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: SVG1109Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured4.3%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
IFBench43.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%60.3%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
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 26 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Nemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.0001Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.0031Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning$0.012Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
MakerZ.aiNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025August 11, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.0534
Output $/Mtok$2.20$0.147
Coding index8.822.6
Independent measurements behind it22
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.06
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding?

Pick Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding: it scores 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 8.8 for GLM 4.6. Pick GLM 4.6 for work measured by AA Coding Index or Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $0.0534 and $0.147. Cost per solved task is known for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning's on 2. 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-nvidia-nemotron-3-5-lightning" title="GLM 4.6 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, 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-nvidia-nemotron-3-5-lightning">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 4.6 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning</a></p>