Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.6V and GLM-4.7 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 42.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.7 in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 38.0.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Z.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index41.342.0
Released2025-12-082025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K205K
Max output33K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$2.20
Results tracked1236

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Coding13901454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
ALE-Bench—399.48

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts13681443
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.51

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
LMArena Math—1423
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Expert13711424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), GLM-4.7: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English13591417
LMArena Chinese14251495
LMArena Russian13401423
LMArena French—1432
LMArena German—1424
LMArena Japanese—1439
LMArena Korean—1399
LMArena Spanish—1434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following13521411

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query13581432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGLM-4.7
LMArena Text13771435
LMArena Creative Writing13471401
LMArena Multi-Turn13601446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.6V and GLM-4.7 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.3 vs 42.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.6V or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and GLM-4.7 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper