Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 55× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.6 Sol in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 74.8 to 20.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 0% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 64% for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 65.0 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2026-07-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $4 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $20 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 65 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1498 |
| DeepSWE | — | 72.7% |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.5% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1618 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 32.2% |
| SciCode | — | 57.1% |
| GSO | — | 76.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 89.4% |
| MirrorCode | — | 20% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 2,177 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 51.4% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 27.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 46.9% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 36.2% |
| BALROG | — | 60% |
| GBAEval | — | 52.6% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1257 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,619 |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 64% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1484 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 92.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 71.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 93.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 97.5% |
| CritPt | — | 32.3% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 37.1% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 44.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 58% |
| DTBench | — | 96% |
| LMCA | — | 59.2% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 93.1% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 161.66 |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1474 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 89.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 82.9% |
| ProofBench | — | 83% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | — | 0% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 93.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 12.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1516 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 69.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1281 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.6% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1483 |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1452 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1527 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1476 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1442 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1468 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1441 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1471 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1482 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1480 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1457 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1448 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | 1972 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1250 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 55× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.6 Sol better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5.6 Sol share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.6 Sol has 65.