Quantification has been proven to be a particularly difficult linguistic phenomenon for (Multimodal) Large Language Models (MLLMs). However, given that quantification interfaces with the logic, pragmatic, and numerical domains, the exact reasons for the poor performance are still unclear. This paper looks at three key features of human quantification shared cross-linguistically that have remained so far unexplored in the (M)LLM literature: the ordering of quantifiers into scales, the ranges of use and prototypicality, and the biases inherent in the human approximate number system. The aim is to determine how these features are encoded in the models' architecture, how they may differ from humans, and whether the results are affected by the type of model (thinking vs. instruct) and the language under investigation. Results show that although thinking models showed a high accuracy in the numerosity estimation task and in the organization of quantifiers into scales, there are still key differences between humans and LLMs across all model types, particularly in terms of ranges of use and prototypicality values. This work, thus, paves the way for addressing the nature of MLLMs as semantic and pragmatic agents, while the cross-linguistic lens can elucidate whether their abilities are robust and stable across different languages.