Model comparison

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 vs GLM-4.7

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 scores higher in 2 categories and GLM-4.7 in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 39.9.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 and GLM-4.7 specifications
Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
ProviderAmazonZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index43.042.0
Released—2025-12-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$2.20
Results tracked1736

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 42.3 (#107), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Coding14331454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
ALE-Bench—399.48

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 leads

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 29.1 (#95), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts14221443
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.51

Math Too close to call

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 39.1 (#114), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Math14311423
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 39.9 (#127), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Expert14311424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%

Multilingual Too close to call

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 51.9 (#98), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English14051417
LMArena Chinese14631495
LMArena French14491432
LMArena German13951424
LMArena Japanese13831439
LMArena Korean13841399
LMArena Russian13941423
LMArena Spanish14441434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 73.2 (#122), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following13871411

Long Context Too close to call

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 42.5 (#121), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query13951432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10: 58.8 (#114), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkAmazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10GLM-4.7
LMArena Text14151435
LMArena Creative Writing13491401
LMArena Multi-Turn13801446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413

Frequently asked questions

Is Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 better than GLM-4.7?

Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 42.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 and GLM-4.7 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Amazon Nova Experimental Chat 11 10 has 17 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper