Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 47.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.3% for GLM-4.7 and 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Z.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index42.038.8
Released2025-12-222026-01-19
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K200K
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.06
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.40
Results tracked3621

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Coding14541383
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), GLM-4.7-Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
Chess Puzzles6%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431356
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%58.3%
LMArena Math14231355
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
GPQA Diamond83.3%60.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%9.3%
LMArena Expert14241357
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Non-English14171330
LMArena Chinese14951403
LMArena French14321332
LMArena German14241337
LMArena Korean13991283
LMArena Russian14231332
LMArena Spanish14341350
LMArena Japanese1439—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14111327

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14321345
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Text14351351
LMArena Creative Writing14011297
EQ-Bench Creative Writing14131125
LMArena Multi-Turn14461342

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.7 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper