Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Yi-1.5-34B

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Yi-1.5-34B 01.AI

30.6

Rank #289 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Yi-1.5-34B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 14.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 83.3% for GLM-4.7 and 32% for Yi-1.5-34B.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Yi-1.5-34B specifications
GLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)01.AI
Noometry Index42.030.6
Released2025-12-222024-05-13
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3621

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), Yi-1.5-34B: 32.4 (#272)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Coding14541169
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—43.8%
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Yi-1.5-34B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Yi-1.5-34B: 22.5 (#191)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Hard Prompts14431160
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Yi-1.5-34B: 27.5 (#249)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Math14231182
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
MATH Level 5—25.5%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Yi-1.5-34B: 14.8 (#295)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
GPQA Diamond83.3%32%
LMArena Expert14241144
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Yi-1.5-34B: 32.3 (#256)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Non-English14171121
LMArena Chinese14951213
LMArena French14321156
LMArena German14241111
LMArena Japanese14391021
LMArena Korean13991005
LMArena Russian14231091
LMArena Spanish14341121

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Yi-1.5-34B: 59.2 (#257)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Instruction Following14111139

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Yi-1.5-34B: 34.6 (#248)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Longer Query14321143
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Yi-1.5-34B: 37.4 (#257)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Yi-1.5-34B
LMArena Text14351173
LMArena Creative Writing14011135
LMArena Multi-Turn14461153
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Yi-1.5-34B?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Yi-1.5-34B better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Yi-1.5-34B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Yi-1.5-34B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper