GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning
Wins 0 of 1 area
—
Wins 1 of 1 area
Images and charts
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 9 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the one area where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning pulls ahead
Where GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 9 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Images and chartsQwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- LiveCodeBenchQwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning by 20.848.769.5+20.8
- HMMT 2025Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning by 20.157.377.4+20.1
- AIME 2025Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning by 17.871.989.7+17.8
- MATH-VisionQwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning by 11.163.574.6+11.1
- MMBench (EN)tie92.892.7tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Reasoning wins the one area where both have results: images and charts. GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 9 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 4 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.