GLM 4.6V vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads GLM 4.6V on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 11.2, and GLM 4.6V costs 6.7x less per output token ($0.90 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
GLM 4.6V or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 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 6.7x cheaper ($0.90 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- GLM 4.6V only
- 34
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
- 3
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads, 39.9 against 11.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a AA Agentic Index result, 50.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 4.6V
GLM 4.6V $0.0008, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $0.0050 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 4.6V not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 31.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 4.6V 9.6% against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 42.4%, 32.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 4.6V $0.90 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 4.6V takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 1.05M.
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.
| Category | GLM 4.6V | Bars | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 4 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 71.9 | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 41.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 14.4% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V 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 | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 11.2 | 39.9 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| 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
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 50.1 | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 31.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 71.9% | 93.5% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 9.6% | 42.4% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| 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 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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 | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 30.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.6V measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 48.7% | 80.3% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| 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 | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.6V | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | December 8, 2025 | August 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.90 | $6.00 |
| 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.6V for output tokens 6.7x cheaper ($0.90 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6V or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
GLM 4.6V costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6V or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6V vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.6V's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.