Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Mistral Nemo

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Mistral Nemo Mistral AI

26.4

Rank #337 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Mistral Nemo in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 35.5 to 12.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 60.5% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 29.9% for Mistral Nemo.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.06 input and $0.40 output per million tokens.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index38.826.4
Released2026-01-192024-07-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K128K
Max output131K128K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$0.15
Results tracked2110

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 Nemo: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
LMArena Coding1383—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—27.6%
BALROG—17.6%

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
Chess Puzzles0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1356—
DTBench—48.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.68
PIQA—83.5%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
LMArena Math1355—
MATH Level 5—10.8%
GSM8K—84.2%

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
GPQA Diamond60.5%29.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1357—
BoolQ—82.5%

Multilingual Not comparable

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

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
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 Nemo: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
LMArena Instruction Following1327—

Long Context Not comparable

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

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
LMArena Longer Query1345—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMistral Nemo
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125881
LMArena Text1351—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
LMArena Multi-Turn1342—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Mistral Nemo?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Mistral Nemo?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo lists at $0.15 and $0.15.

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 Mistral Nemo share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Nemo has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper