Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.1

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Mistral Medium 3.1 Mistral AI

31.9

Rank #266 Reported

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 20.9 to 10.6.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-Flash and Mistral Medium 3.1 specifications
GLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index38.831.9
Released2026-01-19—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K131K
Max output131K105K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$2
Results tracked213

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Coding1383—

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
NYT Connections (extended)—6.5%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Thematic Generalization—20.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1356—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
LMArena Math1355—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1357—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Non-English1330—
LMArena Chinese1403—
LMArena French1332—
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Korean1283—
LMArena Russian1332—
LMArena Spanish1350—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Instruction Following1327—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Longer Query1345—

Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11251476
LMArena Text1351—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
LMArena Multi-Turn1342—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper