Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-1.7B

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Qwen3-1.7B Alibaba (Qwen)

26.6

Rank #336 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 36.1 to 16.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.826.6
Released2026-01-192025-04-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.06—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked214

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), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
LMArena Coding1383—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.4%

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
Chess Puzzles0%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1356—

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%8.1%
LMArena Math1355—

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
GPQA Diamond60.5%38%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1357—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
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), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
LMArena Instruction Following1327—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
LMArena Longer Query1345—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3-1.7B
LMArena Text1351—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—
LMArena Multi-Turn1342—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3-1.7B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3-1.7B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper