Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs GLM-4.7-Flash
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 47.4.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-01-19 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 200K |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.06 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1383 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1356 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1355 |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1357 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 60.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), GLM-4.7-Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1403 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1332 |
| LMArena French | — | 1332 |
| LMArena German | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1283 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1350 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1327 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1345 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1342 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1125 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.6V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V 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; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.
Is GLM-4.6V or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.9 vs 40.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GLM-4.7-Flash share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.