Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 4 Maverick in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 40.6 to 26.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 20.6% for Llama 4 Maverick.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $0.65 for Llama 4 Maverick.
- GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 30.9 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 128K |
| Max output | 131K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.65 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 54 |
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: 40.6 (#135), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.6 (#324)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1302 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 21% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 15.6% |
| SciCode | — | 33.1% |
| WeirdML | — | 24.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49.7% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 61.4% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 172.97 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 4 Maverick: 28.2 (#91)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 37.3% |
Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Llama 4 Maverick: 10.1 (#342)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1281 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| SimpleBench | — | 27.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 55.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 4.4% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.6% |
| DTBench | — | 61.9% |
| LMCA | — | 15.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.2 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.0 (#262)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 20.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1299 |
| Omni-MATH | — | 42.2% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 73% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0.7% |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Llama 4 Maverick: 33.4 (#204)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 67% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 8.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1259 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 5.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 81% |
| Confabulations | — | 22.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 65% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 4 Maverick: 31.6 (#105)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1142 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 31.8% |
Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Llama 4 Maverick: 42.2 (#195)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1269 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1277 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1259 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1291 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1203 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1286 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1293 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
Instruction Following Llama 4 Maverick leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Llama 4 Maverick: 71.7 (#146)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1267 |
| IFEval | — | 90.8% |
Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Llama 4 Maverick: 31.4 (#279)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1280 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Llama 4 Maverick: 38.8 (#252)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1287 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1267 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | 860 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1289 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 62% |
| WildBench | — | 80% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 4 Maverick?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 4 Maverick?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Llama 4 Maverick lists at $0.19 and $0.65.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 26.6 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 4 Maverick share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Maverick has 54.