Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen Turbo
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 36.1 to 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.06 / $0.40 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- Qwen Turbo 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-Flash | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 3 |
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), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 6.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 41.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Qwen Turbo?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7-Flash lists at $0.06 and $0.40.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen Turbo share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.