# Claude 2.1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

> GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-glm-4-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.7-Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 36.1 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 345 | 180 |
| Context | — | 200K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.06 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1383 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1356 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1355 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 60.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1357 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1403 |
| LMArena French | — | 1332 |
| LMArena German | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1332 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1350 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1327 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1345 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.