# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-1.7B

> GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-qwen3-1-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 34.4 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 26.2 |
| Rank | 175 | 331 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 38% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Qwen3-1.7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3-1.7B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3-1.7B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.