Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM-4.7-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 6 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 47.5 to 40.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-01-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 200K |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.06 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1383 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1356 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1355 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1357 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 60.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1332 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1327 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1345 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | 1125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM-4.7-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM-4.7-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.