Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Phi-4 Mini

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 7.6× 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

Phi-4 Mini Microsoft

30.9

Rank #283 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Phi-4 Mini in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 25.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 45.1% for GLM-4.7 and 10.8% for Phi-4 Mini.
  • Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 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-4.7Phi-4 Mini
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index42.030.9
Released2025-12-222024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K128K
Max output131K4K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.075
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.30
Results tracked363

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), Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
SciCode45.1%10.8%
LMArena WebDev1435—
LMArena Coding1454—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
CritPt1.7%0%
SimpleBench47.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1443—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Phi-4 Mini: —

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

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%23.5%
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
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), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Instruction Following1411—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1432—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Phi-4 Mini
LMArena Text1435—
LMArena Creative Writing1401—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Phi-4 Mini?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 7.6× 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 Phi-4 Mini?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.7 or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Phi-4 Mini share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper