# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen-14B

> GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 47.4 to 27.6.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 31.4 |
| Rank | 180 | 275 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1071 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)
- Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1027 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1068 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)
- Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)
- Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1028 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)
- Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1022 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen-14B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen-14B better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen-14B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.