# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max

> Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-qwen3-7-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 48.4 to 20.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max 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 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 51.4 |
| Rank | 175 | 35 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | $7.50 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1483 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| DTBench | — | 92.3% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 153.74 |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1488 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | 1482 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1336 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1460 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1484 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1450 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 40.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.7 Max share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.