GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Qwen3 Max Thinking emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 9
Coding: 2
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 73.945tokens/sec

Qwen3 Max Thinking

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 3
Multimodal: 3
Long Context: 5
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.002
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 40.17tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)` vs `Qwen3 Max Thinking`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking debate, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) scores 90 against Qwen3 Max Thinking's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)300ms

Qwen3 Max Thinking300ms

Tokens per Second

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)73.945

Qwen3 Max Thinking40.17

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking

Power is only one part of the equation. This GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) would cost $0.001, whereas Qwen3 Max Thinking would cost $0.003. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking Battle for You?

Choose GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Qwen3 Max Thinking if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 Max Thinking Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/