Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen Plus

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 27.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.3% for GLM-4.7 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Qwen Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.037.1
Released2025-12-222024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.20
Results tracked3620

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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding14541328
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Qwen Plus: —

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

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts14431317
SimpleBench47.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.3%
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%17.8%
LMArena Math14231326
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%1.7%
ProofBench6%—
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
GPQA Diamond83.3%48.1%
LMArena Expert14241328
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English14171310
LMArena Chinese14951347
LMArena Japanese14391251
LMArena Russian14231323
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1424—
LMArena Korean1399—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14111303

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query14321324
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen Plus
LMArena Text14351326
LMArena Creative Writing14011293
LMArena Multi-Turn14461336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen Plus?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 1.7× 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 Qwen Plus?

Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.7 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper