+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
GLM-4.6 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
GLM-4.6 leads with 34.3% higher average benchmark score. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct offers 59.4K more tokens in context window than GLM-4.6. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is $1.85 cheaper per million tokens. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available on 5 providers. Overall, GLM-4.6 is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.6 was introduced as an enhanced iteration of the GLM-4 series, designed to provide improved capabilities in bilingual language understanding and generation. Built to incorporate refinements to the GLM architecture, it represents continued advancement in Zhipu AI's model development.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B was developed as a flagship-tier open-source model, designed to provide advanced capabilities with 90 billion parameters. Built to serve applications requiring high-quality reasoning and generation, it represents a powerful option within the Llama 3.2 series for demanding tasks.
1 year newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
GLM-4.6
Zhipu AI
2025-09-30
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
GLM-4.6
Input:$0.60
Output:$2.00
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input:$0.35
Output:$0.40($1.85 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 1 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
GLM-4.6
Average Score:81.0%(+34.3%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Average Score:46.7%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
GLM-4.6
2 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 85 tok/s
Latency: 0.7ms
ZeroEval
Throughput: 85 tok/s
Latency: 0.7ms
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
+
+
+
+
GLM-4.6
Avg Score:81.0%(+34.3%)
Providers:2
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Avg Score:46.7%
Providers:5