Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Flash in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 42.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 32.2% for GLM-4.7 and 15.9% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.038.8
Released2025-12-222026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.13
Results tracked3613

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
ALE-Bench399.48326.4
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
LMArena Coding1454—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench47.7%35.2%
Chess Puzzles6%20%
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51143.26
CritPt1.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1443—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LMCA—31%

Math Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%0%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
ProofBench6%—
LMArena Math1423—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond83.3%83.3%
SimpleQA Verified32.2%15.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
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), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1411—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1432—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1435—
LMArena Creative Writing1401—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—
LMArena Multi-Turn1446—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.4× 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 Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper