Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs QwQ-32B
GLM-4.7-Flash and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and QwQ-32B in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 40.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 0% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 5% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1325 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1324 |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1313 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1354 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than QwQ-32B?
GLM-4.7-Flash and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or QwQ-32B better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and QwQ-32B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.