# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Mercury 2.5

> GLM-4.7-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#175); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

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

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 34.4 to 22.4.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.06 / $0.40 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 30.2 |
| Rank | 175 | — |
| Context | 200K | 260K |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | $0.04 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $0.15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Mercury 2.5: 22.4

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1336 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Mercury 2.5?

GLM-4.7-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#175); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7-Flash lists at $0.06 and $0.40.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 2.