Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Llama 3.2 90B
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7 leads 38.6 to 11.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.3% for GLM-4.7 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 27.5 |
| Released | 2025-12-22 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 36 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | — |
| SciCode | 45.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 90B leads
GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| BALROG | — | 27.3% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.51 | 125.5 |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| CritPt | 1.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | — |
Math GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | 2.6% |
| ProofBench | 6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 41% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | — |
| MMLU | — | 80.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1000 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | — |
| LMArena French | 1432 | — |
| LMArena German | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1399 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1434 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7 better than Llama 3.2 90B?
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Llama 3.2 90B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.