Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6V vs GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs 1.5x less per output token than GLM 4.6V ($0.60 vs $0.90 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 23 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.90
23
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
0
vs boards won of 23 shared

GLM 4.6V or GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18): which to pick

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

Pick GLM 4.6V for a larger context window (131K against 128K tokens).

Shared results
23
GLM 4.6V only
15
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) only
23
Like-for-like categories
4 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 4.6V not benchmarked, GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 19.4 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Vision: Chinese: GLM 4.6V 1217 against GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 1033, 30.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6V $0.90 against GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) $0.60 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6V takes 131K tokens, GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 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-mini (2024-07-18)Ties
Coding20
Reasoning30
Knowledge40
General140
All shared boards230
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured3.6%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)41.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)14.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
WeirdMLNot measured11.8%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: coding13891290GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: software and IT13911291GLM 4.6V
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
AA Intelligence Index11.2Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
BALROGNot measured17.4%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)71.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured37.7%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
SimpleBenchNot measured10.7%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured3.0%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured12.0%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
VPCTNot measured34.0%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13671267GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: expert13711234GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13911278GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision: diagrams1182Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1155Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
AA Math Index85.3Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured6.9%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured0.7%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
MATH level 5Not measured52.6%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1267Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1271Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)79.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured8.3%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
MMLUNot measured76.7%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
GeoBenchNot measured64.0%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: science13891286GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13891282GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: legal and government13931305GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: business and finance13591265GLM 4.6V
Neither model has a result on the other 10 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 (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index140
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
IFBench30.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)48.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured67.2%Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text13761286GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: instruction following13501258GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: creative writing13471268GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision11641066GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: English13951301GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: non-English13581266GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: Chinese14251265GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1272Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1216Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1195Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1297Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1276Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: Russian13391275GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1244Only GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13591285GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: longer queries13571289GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: writing and language13471282GLM 4.6V
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13431253GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision: English11791072GLM 4.6V
LMArena Vision: Chinese12171033GLM 4.6V
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 21 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 (2024-07-18)
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Leader
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 (2024-07-18)$0.0004Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.018Fits in one request
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.0093Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6V$0.069Exceeds the context window
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)$0.036Exceeds the context window

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 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 (2024-07-18)
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6VOpenAI GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
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 (2024-07-18) for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.6V for a larger context window (131K against 128K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)?

GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) 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 (2024-07-18)?

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

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6V vs GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) comparison based on?

23 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6V's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)'s on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next