Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 20 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.6

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 20.9.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 92.2% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-Flash and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) specifications
	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	xAI
Noometry Index	38.8	48.6
Released	2026-01-19	2026-02-17
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	200K	1M
Max output	131K	30K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.06	$1.25
Output $ / M tokens	$0.40	$2.50
Results tracked	21	46

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Coding	1383	1459
LMArena WebDev	—	1375
WeirdML	—	52.3%
ALE-Bench	—	1,150

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Terminal-Bench	—	57.3%
τ²-bench Banking	—	18%
LMArena Search	—	1189
Vending-Bench 2	—	4,663

Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
Chess Puzzles	0%	24%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1356	1451
ARC-AGI-2	—	65.1%
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	75%
NYT Connections (extended)	—	85.4%
ARC-AGI-1	—	89.5%
Thematic Generalization	—	63.8%
DTBench	—	90.1%
LMCA	—	38.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	151.98
ForecastBench	—	61.4

Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	58.3%	92.2%
LMArena Math	1355	1455
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	44.9%
FrontierMath Tier 4	—	17.1%
ProofBench	—	14%

Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
GPQA Diamond	60.5%	89.3%
LMArena Expert	1357	1439
SimpleQA Verified	—	30.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Vision	—	1263
Blueprint-Bench 2	—	0%
LMArena Document	—	1416

Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Non-English	1330	1441
LMArena Chinese	1403	1481
LMArena French	1332	1476
LMArena German	1337	1465
LMArena Korean	1283	1417
LMArena Russian	1332	1458
LMArena Spanish	1350	1443
LMArena Japanese	—	1449

Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Instruction Following	1327	1420

Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Longer Query	1345	1437
CL-bench	—	22.2%
CL-bench Life	—	11.9%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)
LMArena Text	1351	1451
LMArena Creative Writing	1297	1438
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1125	1574
LMArena Multi-Turn	1342	1456

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.