Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Wizardlm 70b

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Wizardlm 70b Microsoft

32.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 70b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 61.1 to 34.9.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Wizardlm 70b specifications
GLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index41.732.4
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3612

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74), Wizardlm 70b: 30.9 (#280)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Coding14541081
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), Wizardlm 70b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), Wizardlm 70b: 19.8 (#231)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Hard Prompts14431079
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), Wizardlm 70b: 29.7 (#216)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Math14231116
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74), Wizardlm 70b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), Wizardlm 70b: 29.8 (#260)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Non-English14171078
LMArena Chinese14951052
LMArena German14261083
LMArena Russian14231155
LMArena French1432—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1433—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), Wizardlm 70b: 56.5 (#268)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Instruction Following14111093

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), Wizardlm 70b: 33.3 (#258)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Longer Query14321097
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), Wizardlm 70b: 34.9 (#264)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 70b
LMArena Text14361120
LMArena Creative Writing14011149
LMArena Multi-Turn14461108
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Wizardlm 70b?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Wizardlm 70b better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Wizardlm 70b share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 70b has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper