Model comparison
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b vs GLM-4.7-Flash
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.7-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.5 to 38.4.
- GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-10-24 | 2026-01-19 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 200K |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.06 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.8 (#231), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1197 | 1383 |
Reasoning C4ai Aya Expanse 32b leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 23.3 (#180), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1193 | 1356 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.0 (#197), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1200 | 1355 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 58.3% |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 33.2 (#206), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1182 | 1357 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 60.5% |
Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 38.4 (#230), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1213 | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1211 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1248 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1199 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1158 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1332 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1193 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1163 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 62.6 (#237), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1196 | 1327 |
Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 37.2 (#220), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1228 | 1345 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads
C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 42.2 (#235), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
| Benchmark | C4ai Aya Expanse 32b | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1224 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1200 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1190 | 1342 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1125 |
Frequently asked questions
Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 34.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do C4ai Aya Expanse 32b and GLM-4.7-Flash share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b has 18 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.