Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Wizardlm 13b
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.8 to 27.3.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 10 |
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: 40.0 (#133), Wizardlm 13b: 29.6 (#293)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1035 |
Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224), Wizardlm 13b: 18.5 (#265)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1018 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159), Wizardlm 13b: 27.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1017 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152), Wizardlm 13b: 27.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1034 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1023 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1336 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162), Wizardlm 13b: 53.7 (#280)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1049 |
Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#268)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1054 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206), Wizardlm 13b: 30.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1077 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1090 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1047 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Wizardlm 13b?
GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Wizardlm 13b share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.