# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6 Plus

> Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 7.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-qwen3-6-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 35.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 93.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 47.3 |
| Rank | 175 | 54 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | $0.50 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $3 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1467 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1461 |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 670.15 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Qwen3.6 Plus: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1449 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.67 |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 88.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1456 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1336 | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | 1381 |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | 1432 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1389 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1425 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1440 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1405 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 7.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.0 vs 40.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.