Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #125 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.0

Rank #66 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 35.5.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.445.0
Released2025-07-272026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output98K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$1.60
Results tracked2732

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5 leads

GLM-4.5: 41.1 (#121), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.1 (#200)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding14341473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)54.2%—
SciCode—45.5%
WeirdML40.6%—
ALE-Bench344.82—
AlgoTune1.52—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.2 (#130)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 27.7 (#99), Qwen3.7 Plus: 38.4 (#54)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts14301460
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.39

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 36.3 (#119), Qwen3.7 Plus: 49.3 (#47)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math14271467
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 35.5 (#172), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#46)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Expert14331467
GPQA Diamond—87.9%
Humanity's Last Exam8.3%—
Confabulations11.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.5: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.2 (#30)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1281
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 53.0 (#74), Qwen3.7 Plus: 55.0 (#36)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English14171445
LMArena Chinese14651510
LMArena French14231471
LMArena German14061471
LMArena Japanese14161411
LMArena Korean13821416
LMArena Russian14141457
LMArena Spanish14541453

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 74.3 (#100), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.9 (#49)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14051439

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#196), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#61)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14131454
Fiction.LiveBench58.3%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

GLM-4.5: 57.7 (#121), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.5 (#54)

BenchmarkGLM-4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text14301454
LMArena Creative Writing13951439
LMArena Multi-Turn14151459
Short-Story Creative Writing73.4%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1343—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5 better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.1 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper