Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

37.3

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7 leads 53.0 to 38.3.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index41.737.3
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3615

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14541292
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14431272
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14231305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14241294
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14171210
LMArena Chinese14951241
LMArena French14321262
LMArena German14261260
LMArena Russian14231193
LMArena Spanish14331288
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1401—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14111246

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14321272
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14361271
LMArena Creative Writing14011226
LMArena Multi-Turn14461252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper