Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen Max

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Max in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 30.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.3% for GLM-4.7 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 33K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Qwen Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.034.7
Released2025-12-222024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K33K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$6.40
Results tracked3623

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), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Coding14541288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14431269
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%16.1%
LMArena Math14231275
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%1%
ProofBench6%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
GPQA Diamond83.3%56.1%
LMArena Expert14241248
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Non-English14171263
LMArena Chinese14951254
LMArena French14321330
LMArena German14241254
LMArena Japanese14391205
LMArena Korean13991142
LMArena Russian14231274
LMArena Spanish14341290

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14111262

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14321288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Text14351282
LMArena Creative Writing14011248
LMArena Multi-Turn14461277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen Max?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or Qwen Max?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is GLM-4.7 or Qwen Max better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Qwen Max share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper