Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 35.9.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
- Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 98K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.64 |
Math Too close to call
GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1427 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | — |
| LMArena French | 1418 | — |
| LMArena German | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.