Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GLM-4.6

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GLM-4.6

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 19 results on 3 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 Released 25 Jul 2025 · $0.30 in · $3.00 out
Z.aiGLM-4.6 Released 30 Sep 2025 · $0.50 in · $2.00 out
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 wins 42 too close to callGLM-4.6 wins 13

Of the 19 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Z.ai, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6? The short answer

Pick GLM-4.6: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 18.5 against 12.7) at about the same price.

  • They cost about the same: $0.97 and $0.88 per million tokens (three input to one output).
  • GLM-4.6 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 18.5 against 12.7.
  • GLM-4.6 is newer: released 30 Sep 2025, against 25 Jul 2025 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does better for reasoning and knowledge; GLM-4.6 for agents and tool use and writing.

Head to head

12.7
Intelligence Index
18.5
$0.97
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.88
131,072
Context window, tokens
204,800

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507GLM-4.6
Price per million tokens$0.30 in · $3.00 out$0.50 in · $2.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.97$0.88
Cheapest host, blended$0.75 (Alibaba)$0.76 (Venice, FP4)
Intelligence Index12.718.5
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window131,072 tokens204,800 tokens
Released25 Jul 202530 Sep 2025 (newer)
WeightsOpenOpen
Developer based inChinaChina

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 138 of 164 55 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 117 of 198 108 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 122 of 188 79 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 92 of 152 70 of 152

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507GLM-4.6
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 107 of 387 measured 1,400 1,424
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 120 of 380 measured 1,404 1,412
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 94 of 385 measured 1,371 1,400
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 147 · 111 of 243 measured 12.7 18.5thinking reasoning
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 114 · 120 of 231 measured 79.0% 78.0%thinking reasoning
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 122 · 129 of 242 measured 15.9% 14.5%thinking reasoning
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 139 · 70 of 230 measured 32.4 53.3thinking reasoning
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 166 · 57 of 230 measured 30.0% 13.0%thinking reasoning
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 194 · 31 of 230 measured 0.31 0.38thinking reasoning
Show all 19 results (10 more)
MeasureQwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507GLM-4.6
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 85 · 115 of 338 measured 1,466 1,439
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 142 · 108 of 387 measured 1,385 1,412
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 102 of 386 measured 1,377 1,405
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 7 results
Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 101 · 63 of 130 measured 12.0% 49.4%thinking reasoning
τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 87 · 64 of 121 measured 7.8% 13.4%thinking reasoning
Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 98 · 64 of 131 measured 22.1 45.8thinking reasoning
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 101 · 120 of 195 measured 51.2% 43.4%thinking reasoning
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 99 · 145 of 233 measured 72.0% 54.0%thinking reasoning
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 116 · 69 of 190 measured 13.6% 28.8%no reasoning
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 101 · 74 of 193 measured 53.2% 76.9%no reasoning

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 better than GLM-4.6?

Pick GLM-4.6: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 18.5 against 12.7) at about the same price.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6?

They cost about the same: $0.97 and $0.88 per million tokens (three input to one output).

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 ranks 55 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 138 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 ranks 108 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 117 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 ranks 79 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 122 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 ranks 70 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 92 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6: 204,800 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.

Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 and GLM-4.6 on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.

Try the playgroundTalk to us