Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 4.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 35.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 93.3% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 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-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1473 |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| SciCode | — | 45.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1460 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| CritPt | — | 9.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 84% |
| LMCA | — | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.37 |
Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1467 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1473 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1471 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1457 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1413 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1440 |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1455 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 4.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.