Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 34.4.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Olmo 3 32b Think specifications
GLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index41.738.1
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3614

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 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding14541318
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14431302
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math14231315
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 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert14241272
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14171255
LMArena Chinese14951300
LMArena French14321291
LMArena German14261290
LMArena Russian14231255
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1433—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14111275

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14321296
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text14361300
LMArena Creative Writing14011256
LMArena Multi-Turn14461289
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper