GLM 4.6V vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash costs 6.9x less per output token than GLM 4.6V ($0.13 vs $0.90 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.90
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.13
GLM 4.6V or Qwen3.7 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
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; Qwen3.7 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). 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
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash takes 1M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash
GLM 4.6V $0.0008, Qwen3.7 Flash $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 4.6V not benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash $0.13 per million output tokens, 6.9x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 4.6V takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.7 Flash 1M.
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 | Qwen3.7 Flash | 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 | 420.1 | Only Qwen3.7 Flash 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 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 11.2 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 144.1 | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash | 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 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 15.0% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash 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 13 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash | 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 |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 19.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash | 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 13 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards measured
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash | 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
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.7 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.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | December 8, 2025 | July 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $0.03 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.90 | $0.13 |
| 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 Qwen3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or Qwen3.7 Flash?
GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03 and $0.13. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6V or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash, with 1M tokens against 131K.
Has any benchmark tested both GLM 4.6V and Qwen3.7 Flash?
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; Qwen3.7 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.