Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Laguna M.1

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Laguna M.1 Poolside

32.5

Rank #256 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Laguna M.1 in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7 leads 38.6 to 21.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 6% for GLM-4.7 and 0% for Laguna M.1.
  • Laguna M.1 accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Laguna M.1 specifications
GLM-4.7Laguna M.1
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Poolside
Noometry Index42.032.5
Released2025-12-222026-04-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K262K
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked363

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), Laguna M.1: 36.6 (#204)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
LMArena WebDev14351349
SciCode45.1%—
LMArena Coding1454—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Laguna M.1: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Laguna M.1: 23.1 (#184)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1443—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Laguna M.1: 21.1 (#283)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
ProofBench6%0%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
LMArena Math1423—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Laguna M.1: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Laguna M.1: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
LMArena Non-English1417—
LMArena Chinese1495—
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1424—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1399—
LMArena Russian1423—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Laguna M.1: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
LMArena Instruction Following1411—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Laguna M.1: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1432—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Laguna M.1: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Laguna M.1
LMArena Text1435—
LMArena Creative Writing1401—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Laguna M.1?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Laguna M.1 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Laguna M.1 does, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Laguna M.1 share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Laguna M.1 has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper