Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Phi-4 Mini

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.4

Rank #175 Confirmed

Phi-4 Mini

Microsoft

30.4

Rank #280 Reported

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Phi-4 Mini in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 40.0 to 27.6.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 9.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 23.5% for Phi-4 Mini.
Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 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 and Phi-4 Mini specifications
	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
Provider	Z.ai (Zhipu)	Microsoft
Noometry Index	38.4	30.4
Released	2026-01-19	2024-12-11
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	200K	128K
Max output	131K	4K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.06	$0.075
Output $ / M tokens	$0.40	$0.30
Results tracked	21	3

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), Phi-4 Mini: 27.6 (#312)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
SciCode	—	10.8%
LMArena Coding	1383	—

Reasoning Phi-4 Mini leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224), Phi-4 Mini: 21.7 (#190)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
CritPt	—	0%
Chess Puzzles	0%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	1356	—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159), Phi-4 Mini: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	58.3%	—
LMArena Math	1354	—

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177), Phi-4 Mini: 24.8 (#261)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	23.5%
GPQA Diamond	60.5%	—
LMArena Expert	1357	—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152), Phi-4 Mini: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
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), Phi-4 Mini: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Instruction Following	1327	—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143), Phi-4 Mini: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Longer Query	1345	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206), Phi-4 Mini: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GLM-4.7-Flash	Phi-4 Mini
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 Phi-4 Mini?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Phi-4 Mini?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7-Flash lists at $0.06 and $0.40.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 27.6 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 Phi-4 Mini share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.