Model Comparison
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Z AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Z GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
29.8 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
$0.18/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)
53.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) is 1.7x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-4.6V (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.1x as many tokens per second as GLM-4.6V (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) leads Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) by 23.8 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) wins 13 measurable categories, including TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence, Math.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Z GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) | Al Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.30/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.90/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Z AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Dec 8, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 58.1 tok/s | 63.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1144ms | 1563ms |
| Latency | 35562ms | 1563ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 73.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 53.6 | 29.8 |
| Intelligence | 16.8 | 5.1 |
| Math | 85.3 | 24.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 71.9% | 45.2% |
| MMLU Pro | 79.9% | 64.3% |
| HLE | 8.9% | 2.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 16.0% | 20.2% |
| MATH 500 | — | 82.8% |
| AIME 2025 | 85.3% | 24.3% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 24.3% |
| SciCode | 30.4% | 16.8% |
| LCR | 40.3% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 30.1% | 28.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 31.6% | 24.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 14.4% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.18/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 53.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
GLM-4.6V (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
