# GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

> Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-vs-qwen3-6-max-preview
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 41.7 to 24.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 32.2% for GLM-4.7 and 52% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 51.5 |
| Rank | 124 | 43 |
| Context | 205K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | $1.30 |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | $7.80 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SciCode | 45.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | 4,254 |
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | 63% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1457 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.51 | 149.24 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| CritPt | 1.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 87.2% |
| LMCA | — | 42.5% |

## Math

- GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | 4.2% |
| ProofBench | 6% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | 1478 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1434 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1399 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | 1438 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | 1457 |
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.

### Is GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 44.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.