Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6V vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads GLM 4.6V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.9 to 11.2, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs 6.1x less per output token ($0.147 vs $0.90 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.6VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.90
0
Nemotron 3.5 LightningNVIDIA
Coding
22.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.147
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

GLM 4.6V or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: which to pick

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 4.6V has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
4
GLM 4.6V only
34
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
16
Like-for-like categories
3 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, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 11.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): GLM 4.6V 48.7% against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 60.3%, 11.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6V $0.90 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.147 per million output tokens, 6.1x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6V takes 131K 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 4.6VBarsNemotron 3.5 LightningTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning02
General01
All shared boards04
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index13 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured26.8Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
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)41.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
SciCodeNot measured32.1%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)14.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
ALE-BenchNot measured769.2Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Intelligence Index11.212.9Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured3.5Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 Telecom31.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)71.9%74.3%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)9.6%10.6%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
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 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
AA Math Index85.3Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured54.2%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)79.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V 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 12 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 3.5 LightningLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured4.3%Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured
IFBench30.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6V measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)48.7%60.3%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
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 27 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
BenchmarkGLM 4.6VNemotron 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 4.6V$0.0008Fits 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 4.6V$0.018Fits 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 4.6V$0.069Exceeds 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 4.6V and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6VNVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
MakerZ.aiNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 8, 2025August 11, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.0534
Output $/Mtok$0.90$0.147
Coding indexNot benchmarked22.6
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.06
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6V better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding?

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has a coding score, 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 4.6V has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 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 4.6V or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, with 262K tokens against 131K.

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

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6V's coding index rests on 0 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