Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.5 Plus

GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.5 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 42.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5 Plus in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 49.6 to 38.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 6% for GLM-4.7 and 22% for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.042.9
Released2025-12-222026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$2.40
Results tracked3615

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
ALE-Bench399.48621.92
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
LMArena Coding1454—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
Vending-Bench 22,3770.54
Terminal-Bench33.4%—

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
Chess Puzzles6%22%
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51146.78
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1443—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%86.7%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%2.1%
ProofBench6%—
LMArena Math1423—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
GPQA Diamond83.3%84.8%
SimpleQA Verified32.2%25.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%10.7%
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1411—

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench15.9%19.8%
CL-bench Life10.9%12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1432—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1435—
LMArena Creative Writing1401—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.5 Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 42.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper