Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.0x less per output token than GLM 4.6 ($1.125 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
1
Qwen3.6 FlashQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.125
0
vs boards won of 1 shared

GLM 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Flash: which to pick

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.6 Flash for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($1.125 vs $2.20 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Shared results
1
GLM 4.6 only
68
Qwen3.6 Flash only
10
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, Qwen3.6 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 0.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
ALE-Bench: GLM 4.6 340.8 against Qwen3.6 Flash 326.4, 0.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Qwen3.6 Flash $1.125 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Qwen3.6 Flash 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 4.6BarsQwen3.6 FlashTies
Coding10
All shared boards10
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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-Bench340.8326.4GLM 4.6
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 index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index18.5Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured142.9Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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 index11 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured83.3%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
SimpleBenchNot measured35.2%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured12.0%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured18.0%Only Qwen3.6 Flash 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 11 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured84.4%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured22.5%Only Qwen3.6 Flash 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 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured15.9%Only Qwen3.6 Flash 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 Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
IFBench43.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
DTBenchNot measured77.1%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMCANot measured31.0%Only Qwen3.6 Flash 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 25 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 Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
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
Qwen3.6 Flash$0.0008Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Flash$0.013Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 Flash$0.049Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Flash 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 Qwen3.6 Flash
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6Qwen3.6 Flash
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025April 27, 2026
Context window205K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.1875
Output $/Mtok$2.20$1.125
Coding index8.8Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Qwen3.6 Flash for coding?

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 Flash for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($1.125 vs $2.20 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.1875 and $1.125. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Flash comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next