Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Hunyuan Turbos 20250226

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 Tencent

40.6

Rank #138 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 36.4.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 specifications
GLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Tencent
Noometry Index41.740.6
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3616

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 39.3 (#148)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Coding14541361
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 26.7 (#115)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Hard Prompts14431374
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 34.8 (#155)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Math14231359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 36.4 (#158)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Expert14241338
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 49.1 (#132)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Non-English14171362
LMArena Chinese14951416
LMArena French14321390
LMArena German14261356
LMArena Japanese14391338
LMArena Korean14011351
LMArena Russian14231368
LMArena Spanish1433—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 71.2 (#153)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Instruction Following14111344

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 41.6 (#132)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Longer Query14321365
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), Hunyuan Turbos 20250226: 57.5 (#125)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Hunyuan Turbos 20250226
LMArena Text14361377
LMArena Creative Writing14011358
LMArena Multi-Turn14461387
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Hunyuan Turbos 20250226?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 39.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Hunyuan Turbos 20250226 has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper