Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 49.4.
- GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-22 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 36 | 14 |
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), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1314 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | — |
| SciCode | 45.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1299 |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| CritPt | 1.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.51 | — |
Math GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1298 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 6% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1424 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1399 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1434 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | 1275 |
Long Context GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | 1292 |
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.7 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.