GLM 4.6V vs o4 Mini High
GLM 4.6V costs 4.9x less per output token than o4 Mini High ($0.90 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 11.2
- Output $/M
- $0.90
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $4.40
GLM 4.6V or o4 Mini High: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 4.9x cheaper ($0.90 vs $4.40 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.6V has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; o4 Mini High on ALE-Bench and GDPval. Compare them on price and context instead.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only GLM 4.6V has a AA Intelligence Index result, 11.2.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
o4 Mini High
o4 Mini High takes 200K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 4.6V
GLM 4.6V $0.0008, o4 Mini High $0.0033 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 4.6V not benchmarked, o4 Mini High not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- GLM 4.6V $0.90 against o4 Mini High $4.40 per million output tokens, 4.9x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 4.6V takes 131K tokens, o4 Mini High 200K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 41.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 14.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 826.2 | Only o4 Mini High measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1389 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1391 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 11.2 | Not measured | Only 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 measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| GDPval | Not measured | 25.3% | Only o4 Mini High measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 71.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 9.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1367 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1371 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1391 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1182 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1155 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 85.3 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.3% | Not measured | Only 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 index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 79.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1389 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1389 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1393 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1359 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | o4 Mini High | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 30.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 48.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text | 1376 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1350 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1347 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1395 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1358 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1425 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1339 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1359 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1357 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1347 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1343 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1179 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1217 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1171 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1113 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 28 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GLM 4.6V costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GLM 4.6V 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.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 4.6V | OpenAI o4 Mini High |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | December 8, 2025 | April 16, 2025 |
| Context window | 131K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $1.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.90 | $4.40 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 4.6V better than o4 Mini High for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 4.9x cheaper ($0.90 vs $4.40 per million).
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or o4 Mini High?
GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; o4 Mini High costs $1.10 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6V or o4 Mini High?
o4 Mini High, with 200K tokens against 131K.
Has any benchmark tested both GLM 4.6V and o4 Mini High?
No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.6V has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; o4 Mini High on ALE-Bench and GDPval. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.