Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 8.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Qwen3 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #91 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 235B-A22B leads 50.4 to 36.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 86.7% for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.843.5
Released2026-01-192025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$2.80
Results tracked2149

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding13831445
Aider Polyglot—59.6%
SciCode—42.4%
WeirdML—41%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—52.1%
Vending-Bench 2—-11.34

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
Chess Puzzles0%12%
LMArena Hard Prompts13561433
ARC-AGI-2—1.3%
SimpleBench—31%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—69.4%
ARC-AGI-1—11%
CritPt—0%
Mystery Game Puzzles—9%
DTBench—80.3%
LMCA—29.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.85
ForecastBench—59.7

Math Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%86.7%
LMArena Math13551432
Omni-MATH—71.8%
MATH Level 5—68.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—8.5%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
GPQA Diamond60.5%80.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%9.3%
LMArena Expert13571463
SimpleQA Verified—40.4%
MMLU-Pro—84.4%
Confabulations—15.6%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%

Multilingual Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English13301409
LMArena Chinese14031481
LMArena French13321445
LMArena German13371433
LMArena Korean12831391
LMArena Russian13321411
LMArena Spanish13501430
LMArena Japanese—1399

Instruction Following Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following13271408
IFEval—83.5%

Long Context Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query13451426
Fiction.LiveBench—75%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Text13511419
LMArena Creative Writing12971384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11251366
LMArena Multi-Turn13421432
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
WildBench—86.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 8.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

Qwen3 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3 235B-A22B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper