Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs 2.2x less per output token than GLM 4.6 ($1.00 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
1
Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
0
vs boards won of 1 shared

GLM 4.6 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct: which to pick

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($1.00 vs $2.20 per million).

Shared results
1
GLM 4.6 only
68
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct only
5
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, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 9.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Kagi LLM Benchmark: GLM 4.6 45.7% against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 36.0%, 9.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 128K.

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 4.6BarsQwen2.5 VL 72B InstructTies
Reasoning10
All shared boards10
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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 Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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 index8 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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
OSWorldNot measured5.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 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
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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%36.0%GLM 4.6
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 Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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 index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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
GeoBenchNot measured62.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 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 7 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 Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1174Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: UI components1145Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: game dev1150Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: data viz1161Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: 3D1128Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1165Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: SVG1108Not 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 index22 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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 VisionNot measured1107Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 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
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1115Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1107Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 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 Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.0013Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.043Fits in one request

GLM 4.6 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.170Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.6 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 Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025February 1, 2025
Context window205K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.80
Output $/Mtok$2.20$1.00
Coding index8.8Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for coding?

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($1.00 vs $2.20 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs $0.80 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

GLM 4.6, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next