# Claude 2.1 vs GLM-4.7

> GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-glm-4-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 15.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 83.3% for GLM-4.7.
- GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 41.7 |
| Rank | 340 | 117 |
| Context | — | 205K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1435 |
| SciCode | — | 45.1% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1454 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 399.48 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 33.4% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 2,377 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 143.53 |
| SimpleBench | — | 47.7% |
| CritPt | — | 1.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1443 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 83.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1423 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 2.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 32.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1424 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1417 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1495 |
| LMArena French | — | 1432 |
| LMArena German | — | 1426 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1439 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1433 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1411 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 15.9% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 10.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1432 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1401 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1413 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1446 |

## FAQ

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

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

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

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.