Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 19.5.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct specifications
GLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index42.032.7
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
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: 44.0 (#79), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14541210
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14431208
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14231208
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
Omni-MATH—16.1%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
MMLU-Pro—41.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
GPQA (HELM)—28.7%
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14171160
LMArena Chinese14951192
LMArena Russian14231187
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1424—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1399—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14111186
IFEval—78%

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14321194
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14351218
LMArena Creative Writing14011199
LMArena Multi-Turn14461221
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—
WildBench—73.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper