Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.5V vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5V scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 37.5.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 64K.
  • GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.845.3
Released2025-08-112026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window64K1M
Max output16K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$1.80$1.60
Results tracked1532

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding13471473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SciCode—45.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.5V: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13341460
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math13541466
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Expert13531467
GPQA Diamond—87.9%

Multimodal Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision11541279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English13031445
LMArena Chinese13371510
LMArena Russian12981457
LMArena Spanish13361457
LMArena French—1473
LMArena German—1471
LMArena Japanese—1413
LMArena Korean—1415

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following13111440

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query13041455

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5VQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text13331455
LMArena Creative Writing12951439
LMArena Multi-Turn13321460

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5V better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5V or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.

Is GLM-4.5V or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 64K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper