Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-4B
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3-4B 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 29.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 60.5% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 52.3% for Qwen3-4B.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 31.9 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 6 |
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), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3-4B: 27.6 (#100)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 35.7% |
Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3-4B: 19.2 (#268)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3-4B: 29.7 (#240)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 52.2% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3-4B: 33.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 52.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 5.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Qwen3-4B?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3-4B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-4B has 6.