Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3 Max
Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Max'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 0 categories and Qwen3 Max in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 Max leads 62.4 to 47.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 73.3% for Qwen3 Max.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $6 for Qwen3 Max.
- Qwen3 Max accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 43.7 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2025-09-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $1.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Qwen3 Max: 43.0 (#93)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1456 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 370.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 71.56 |
Reasoning Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3 Max: 22.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1448 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 72.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 30.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.1% |
| LMCA | — | 28.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 142.38 |
Math Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3 Max: 38.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1446 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.9% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#78)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 72.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1455 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3 Max: 53.7 (#62)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1449 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1463 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1462 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1397 |
Instruction Following Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen3 Max: 74.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1419 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#134)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1438 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3 Max: 62.4 (#76)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1402 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3 Max?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Max lists at $1.20 and $6.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3 Max better for coding?
Qwen3 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 Max does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3 Max share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.