Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6V vs GPT-4o-mini

Updated October 21, 2026. 8 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 4.6VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
11.2
Output $/M
$0.90
7
GPT-4o-miniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$0.60
1
vs boards won of 8 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

GLM 4.6V has the edge where the context window is larger, 131K against 128K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is IFBench, where it leads.

Shared results
8
GLM 4.6V only
30
GPT-4o-mini only
19
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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 4.6V not benchmarked, GPT-4o-mini not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 70.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 4.6V 85.3% against GPT-4o-mini 14.7%, 70.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6V $0.90 against GPT-4o-mini $0.60 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6V takes 131K tokens, GPT-4o-mini 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 4.6VBarsGPT-4o-miniTies
Coding10
Intelligence10
Reasoning20
Math20
Knowledge10
General01
All shared boards71
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured11.4Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured26.4%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%23.4%GLM 4.6V
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)14.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: coding1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1391Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.26.7GLM 4.6V
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured126.5Only GPT-4o-mini measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured44.2%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)71.9%42.6%GLM 4.6V
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.6%4.2%GLM 4.6V
ARC-AGI-2Not measured0.0%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1367Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: expert1371Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1391Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1182Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1155Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
AIMENot measured11.5%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured72.6%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured86.2%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
AA Math Index85.314.7GLM 4.6V
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%14.7%GLM 4.6V
GSM8KNot measured91.3%Only GPT-4o-mini 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 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
MMLU ProNot measured62.7%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured45.5%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured60.5%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured54.5%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured72.4%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)79.9%64.8%GLM 4.6V
MMLUNot measured81.8%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text: science1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1393Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1359Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
IFBench30.1%31.0%GPT-4o-mini
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)48.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
DTBenchNot measured54.4%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMCANot measured10.4%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
PIQANot measured88.7%Only GPT-4o-mini measured
LMArena Text1376Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision1164Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: English1395Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: non-English1358Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1425Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: Russian1339Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1359Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1347Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: English1179Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1217Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1171Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1113Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V 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 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-miniLeader
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 4.6V$0.0008Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini$0.0004Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.018Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini$0.0093Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.069Exceeds the context window
GPT-4o-mini$0.036Exceeds the context window

GPT-4o-mini 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 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6VOpenAI GPT-4o-mini
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 8, 2025July 18, 2024
Context window131K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.15
Output $/Mtok$0.90$0.60
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6V better than GPT-4o-mini for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GLM 4.6V has the edge where the context window is larger, 131K against 128K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is IFBench, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or GPT-4o-mini?

GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6V or GPT-4o-mini?

GLM 4.6V, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6V vs GPT-4o-mini comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6V's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o-mini's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next