The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-4.6 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

GLM-4.6 leads the LLM Stats Score 29.4 to 0.7.

Zhipu AI · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GLM-4.6 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 29.4 to 0.7, ranking #122 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose GLM-4.6

  • overall performance matters — it scores 29.4 and ranks #122 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2025

Choose Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

  • you are already invested in the NVIDIA ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GLM-4.6
Zhipu AI
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
29.4
#122
0.7
#313
Reasoning
29.3
#114
0.4
#305
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.55 / M
— / M
Output price
$2.00 / M
— / M
Context window
131,072
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
GLM-4.6
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Math
25.0#109
7.4#257
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for GLM-4.6 · 11 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

GLM-4.6 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

287.0B diff

GLM-4.6 has 287.0B more parameters than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct, making it 410.0% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-4.6
357.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
70.0Bparameters
357.0B
GLM-4.6
70.0B
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only GLM-4.6 specifies input context (131,072 tokens). Only GLM-4.6 specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Zhipu AI
GLM-4.6
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

GLM-4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct does not.

GLM-4.6 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GLM-4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GLM-4.6 is licensed under MIT, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

GLM-4.6

MIT

Open weights

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GLM-4.6 was released on 2025-09-30, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct was released on 2024-10-01.

GLM-4.6 is 12 months newer than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

GLM-4.6

Sep 30, 2025

11 months ago

12mo newer
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Oct 1, 2024

1.9 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-12-01, while GLM-4.6's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct's training data extends to 2023-12-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without GLM-4.6's cutoff date.

GLM-4.6

—

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Dec 2023

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GLM-4.6 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-4.6
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-4.6 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Which is better, GLM-4.6 or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

GLM-4.6 leads the LLM Stats Score 29.4 to 0.7. GLM-4.6 is made by Zhipu AI and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does GLM-4.6 compare to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct in benchmarks?

GLM-4.6 scores AIME 2025: 93.9%, LiveCodeBench v6: 82.8%, GPQA: 81.0%, SWE-Bench Verified: 68.0%, BrowseComp: 45.1%. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct scores GSM8k: 91.4%, HellaSwag: 85.6%, Winogrande: 84.5%, GSM8K Chat: 81.9%, MMLU Chat: 80.6%.

What are the context window sizes for GLM-4.6 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

GLM-4.6 supports 131K tokens and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between GLM-4.6 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (29.4 vs 0.7), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GLM-4.6 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

GLM-4.6 is developed by Zhipu AI and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons