Model comparison
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b vs GLM-4.7
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 42.2.
- GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 42.0 |
| Released | 2024-10-24 | 2025-12-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 205K |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.20 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.8 (#231), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1197 | 1454 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1435 |
| SciCode | — | 45.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 399.48 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 33.4% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 2,377 |
Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 23.3 (#180), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1193 | 1443 |
| SimpleBench | — | 47.7% |
| CritPt | — | 1.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.51 |
Math GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.0 (#197), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1200 | 1423 |
| 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
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 33.2 (#206), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1182 | 1424 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 32.2% |
Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 38.4 (#230), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1213 | 1417 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1211 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1248 | 1432 |
| LMArena German | 1199 | 1424 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1163 | 1439 |
| LMArena Korean | 1158 | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1193 | 1434 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 62.6 (#237), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1196 | 1411 |
Long Context GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 37.2 (#220), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1228 | 1432 |
| CL-bench | — | 15.9% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 10.9% |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 42.2 (#235), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1224 | 1435 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1200 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1190 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1413 |
Frequently asked questions
Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b better than GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b or GLM-4.7 better for coding?
GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 34.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do C4ai Aya Expanse 32b and GLM-4.7 share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b has 18 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.