GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning): A Comparação Definitiva de Desempenho e Preço

Mergulhe profundamente em raciocínio, benchmarks e insights de latência.

O Veredicto Final no Confronto GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)

Após uma análise abrangente, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) surge como a escolha superior para usuários que priorizam inteligência e raciocínio brutos. No entanto, Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) continua a ser uma opção altamente competitiva, especialmente para cenários que exigem tempos de resposta mais rápidos e eficiência de custos. Esta detalhada comparação de GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) irá analisar cada métrica crítica para ajudá-lo a tomar a melhor decisão.

Explore os melhores cenários•Deixe o AI Selector recomendar os próximos passos

Instantâneo do Modelo

Principais métricas de decisão em um relance.

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)

Other

Raciocínio: 9
Codificação: 2
Multimodal: 2
Contexto Longo: 3
Preço Combinado / 1M tokens: $0.000
Latência P95: 1000ms
Tokens por segundo: 69.883tokens/seg

Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)

Other

Raciocínio: 2
Codificação: 1
Multimodal: 1
Contexto Longo: 1
Preço Combinado / 1M tokens: $0.000
Latência P95: 1000ms
Tokens por segundo: 203.454tokens/seg

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)` vs `Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)`.

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 0.6B (Reasoning) debate, GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) scores 90 against Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)'s 20. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) 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 0.6B (Reasoning) 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 0.6B (Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)69.883

Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)203.454

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) 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 0.6B (Reasoning) would cost $0.000. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) 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 0.6B (Reasoning) 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 0.6B (Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Fonte de dados: https://artificialanalysis.ai/