Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs GPT-5.1-Codex
GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5.1-Codex score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 36.1 to 30.3.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
- GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2025-11-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 400K |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.9 (#116)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,245 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, GPT-5.1-Codex: 38.0 (#33)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 60.4% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 70.8% |
Reasoning Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), GPT-5.1-Codex: 30.3 (#235)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 9% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than GPT-5.1-Codex?
GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5.1-Codex score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.1-Codex?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.1-Codex better for coding?
GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5.1-Codex share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1-Codex has 6.