Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Mistral Nemo

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Mistral Nemo Mistral AI

26.4

Rank #337 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 5 categories and Mistral Nemo in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 12.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 83.3% for GLM-4.7 and 29.9% for Mistral Nemo.
  • Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index42.026.4
Released2025-12-222024-07-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K128K
Max output131K128K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.15
Results tracked3610

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 Nemo: —

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

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—27.6%
BALROG—17.6%
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51118.68
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1443—
DTBench—48.6%
PIQA—83.5%

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
LMArena Math1423—
MATH Level 5—10.8%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—
GSM8K—84.2%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
GPQA Diamond83.3%29.9%
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
LMArena Expert1424—
BoolQ—82.5%

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Mistral Nemo: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
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 Nemo: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
LMArena Instruction Following1411—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Mistral Nemo: —

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

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Mistral Nemo
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413881
LMArena Text1435—
LMArena Creative Writing1401—
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Mistral Nemo?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 6.7× 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 Mistral Nemo?

Mistral Nemo is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 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 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Mistral Nemo share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Nemo has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper