Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs GLM-4.7
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 83.3% for GLM-4.7.
- GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 42.0 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2025-12-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 205K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.20 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.7 leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1435 |
| SciCode | — | 45.1% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 399.48 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 33.4% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 2,377 |
Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 143.51 |
| SimpleBench | — | 47.7% |
| CritPt | — | 1.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1443 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math GLM-4.7 leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 83.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 2.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 32.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1424 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1417 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1495 |
| LMArena French | — | 1432 |
| LMArena German | — | 1424 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1439 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1434 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1411 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 15.9% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 10.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1432 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1435 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1401 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1413 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1446 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-4.7 better for coding?
GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-4.7 share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.