Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 3.2 90B
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 34.4 to 10.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 27.3% |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224), Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.5 |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159), Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 2.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.4% |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 41% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
| MMLU | — | 80.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1000 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1336 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Llama 3.2 90B?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 3.2 90B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.