# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B

> GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-qwen3-5-9b
- 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 2 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 35.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 60.5% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 79% for Qwen3.5-9B.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.06 / $0.40 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 33.3 |
| Rank | 175 | 235 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $0.15 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 12% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.45 |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 61.7% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 79% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Qwen3.5-9B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
- Qwen3.5-9B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Qwen3.5-9B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Qwen3.5-9B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.5-9B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7-Flash lists at $0.06 and $0.40.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 35.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.5-9B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.