Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen1.5-72B
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 35.5 to 11.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 60.5% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 22 |
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: 40.6 (#135), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1148 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1164 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1136 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1084 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1110 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1141 |
Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1160 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen1.5-72B?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen1.5-72B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.