Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 3.1-8B
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 22.8 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-8B costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.1-8B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 35.4 to 8.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 1.7% for Llama 3.1-8B.
- Llama 3.1-8B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.08 per million input/output tokens, against $0.06 / $0.40 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 22.8 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 128K |
| Max output | 131K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.08 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133), Llama 3.1-8B: 19.9 (#335)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1195 |
| SciCode | — | 13.2% |
| WeirdML | — | 1.7% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.5% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 62.8% |
| MBPP+ | — | 55.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 22.3 (#123)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 25.8% |
| BALROG | — | 15.1% |
Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224), Llama 3.1-8B: 14.5 (#316)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1175 |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 50.9% |
| LMCA | — | 5.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 116.48 |
| PIQA | — | 81.2% |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159), Llama 3.1-8B: 9.5 (#311)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 1.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1179 |
| Omni-MATH | — | 13.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 22.9% |
| GSM8K | — | 82.4% |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177), Llama 3.1-8B: 8.0 (#302)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 27% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1144 |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 40.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 24.7% |
| BoolQ | — | 82.8% |
| MMLU | — | 56.1% |
Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152), Llama 3.1-8B: 34.2 (#244)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1148 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1151 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1176 |
| LMArena German | 1336 | 1144 |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | 1053 |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | 1158 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | 1169 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162), Llama 3.1-8B: 59.1 (#253)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1159 |
| IFEval | — | 74.3% |
Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143), Llama 3.1-8B: 35.8 (#233)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1182 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206), Llama 3.1-8B: 29.9 (#285)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1154 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | 713 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1172 |
| WildBench | — | 68.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 3.1-8B?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 22.8 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-8B costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 3.1-8B?
Llama 3.1-8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.08 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7-Flash lists at $0.06 and $0.40.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 3.1-8B better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 3.1-8B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-8B has 43.