AnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.6VSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-4.6
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GLM-4.6 directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/Acomplex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
79.9%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$6.00Input: $3.00 | Output: $15.00Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)
68%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+3.0%)
82.9%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)6.0x cheaper
$1.00Input: $0.60 | Output: $2.20Context Window
202.75k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GLM-4.6
GLM-4.6 is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6. GLM-4.6 has a blended cost of $1.00/1M tokens, which is about 6.0x cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $6.00/1M tokens.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GLM-4.6.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.