Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen Plus

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.4

Rank #175 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

36.7

Rank #204 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen Plus in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 34.4 to 22.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.436.7
Released2026-01-192024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.20
Results tracked2120

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), Qwen Plus: 38.3 (#163)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Coding13831328

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224), Qwen Plus: 27.6 (#101)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13561317
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.3%
Chess Puzzles0%—
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159), Qwen Plus: 22.0 (#266)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%17.8%
LMArena Math13541326
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1.7%

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#245)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
GPQA Diamond60.5%48.1%
LMArena Expert13571328
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152), Qwen Plus: 45.3 (#170)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Non-English13311310
LMArena Chinese14031347
LMArena Russian13331323
LMArena French1332—
LMArena German1336—
LMArena Japanese—1251
LMArena Korean1284—
LMArena Spanish1351—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162), Qwen Plus: 69.0 (#176)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following13271303

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#153)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query13451325

Writing & Preference Qwen Plus leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206), Qwen Plus: 52.4 (#171)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Text13511326
LMArena Creative Writing12971293
LMArena Multi-Turn13421336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen Plus?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen Plus?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 38.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen Plus share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper