# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.6 to 47.7.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 175 | 142 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1360 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1369 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1336 | 1350 |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | 1377 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen2.5-Max share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.