# GLM-4.7 vs Qwen2.5-Max

> GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 34.8.
- GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 117 | 142 |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1359 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | — |
| SciCode | 45.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)
- Qwen2.5-Max: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.53 | 132.54 |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| CritPt | 1.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1369 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1426 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | 1358 |
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

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

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 40.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 41.2 in the Noometry coding category.

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

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.