# GLM-4.7-Flash vs GPT-5.2 Codex

> GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-gpt-5-2-codex
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.2 Codex leads 45.5 to 40.6.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2 Codex.
- GPT-5.2 Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 42.6 |
| Rank | 180 | 111 |
| Context | 200K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | $1.75 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $14 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: 45.5 (#71)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1339 |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 66.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,300 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- GPT-5.2 Codex: 41.0 (#22)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 66.5% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
- GPT-5.2 Codex: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | GPT-5.2 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than GPT-5.2 Codex?

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.2 Codex?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Codex lists at $1.75 and $14.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5.2 Codex better for coding?

GPT-5.2 Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.5 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Codex does, with 400K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5.2 Codex share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Codex has 5.