GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 7 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.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 7 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Images and chartsGLM-4.6V (106B-A12B)
Other results4 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.
- HMMT 2025GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) by 4.257.353.1+4.2
- MATH-VisionGLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) by 3.563.560+3.5
- AIME 2025Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) by 2.671.974.5+2.6
- LiveCodeBenchQwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) by 2.648.751.3+2.6
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) or Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)?
GLM-4.6V (106B-A12B) wins the one area where both have results: images and charts. Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 7 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 3 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 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.