Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 6.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 Plus in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 49.6 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 Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus 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-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.842.9
Released2026-01-192026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$2.40
Results tracked2115

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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Coding1383—
ALE-Bench—621.92

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
Chess Puzzles0%22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1356—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.78

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%86.7%
LMArena Math1355—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
GPQA Diamond60.5%84.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%10.7%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
LMArena Expert1357—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1327—

Long Context Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1345—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1351—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—
LMArena Multi-Turn1342—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 6.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus lists at $0.40 and $2.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper