Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Mistral Medium 3.1

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Mistral Medium 3.1 Mistral AI

31.9

Rank #266 Reported

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 2 categories and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.7 leads 24.3 to 10.6.
  • Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index42.031.9
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K131K
Max output131K105K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$2
Results tracked363

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
LMArena Coding1454—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
SimpleBench47.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)—6.5%
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Thematic Generalization—20.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1443—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
LMArena Math1423—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
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), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Instruction Following1411—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1432—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Medium 3.1
EQ-Bench Creative Writing14131476
LMArena Text1435—
LMArena Creative Writing1401—
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or Mistral Medium 3.1?

Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper