# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

> Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-grok-4-20
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 20.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 92.2% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 48.6 |
| Rank | 180 | 54 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | $1.25 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $2.50 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1459 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1375 |
| WeirdML | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,150 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 57.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 18% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1189 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,663 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1451 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89.5% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 63.8% |
| DTBench | — | 90.1% |
| LMCA | — | 38.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.98 |
| ForecastBench | — | 61.4 |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 92.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1455 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 14% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 89.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1439 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 30.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1416 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1441 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1476 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1465 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1458 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1443 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1449 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1420 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1437 |
| CL-bench | — | 22.2% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 11.9% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1451 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | 1574 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1456 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better for coding?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46.