Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs GPT-5-Codex

GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5-Codex score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 37.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

GPT-5-Codex OpenAI

37.9

Rank #192 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5-Codex leads 30.9 to 20.9.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5-Codex.
  • GPT-5-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5-Codex specifications
GLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)OpenAI
Noometry Index38.837.9
Released2026-01-192025-09-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window200K400K
Max output131K128K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$10
Results tracked213

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5-Codex leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), GPT-5-Codex: 42.4 (#103)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
WeirdML—54.5%
LMArena Coding1383—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, GPT-5-Codex: 31.0 (#72)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
Terminal-Bench—44.3%

Reasoning GPT-5-Codex leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), GPT-5-Codex: 30.9 (#83)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
Kagi LLM Benchmark—70.3%
Chess Puzzles0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1356—

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), GPT-5-Codex: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
LMArena Math1355—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), GPT-5-Codex: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1357—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), GPT-5-Codex: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
LMArena Non-English1330—
LMArena Chinese1403—
LMArena French1332—
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Korean1283—
LMArena Russian1332—
LMArena Spanish1350—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), GPT-5-Codex: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
LMArena Instruction Following1327—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), GPT-5-Codex: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
LMArena Longer Query1345—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), GPT-5-Codex: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGPT-5-Codex
LMArena Text1351—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—
LMArena Multi-Turn1342—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than GPT-5-Codex?

GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5-Codex score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 37.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5-Codex?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or GPT-5-Codex better for coding?

GPT-5-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and GPT-5-Codex share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5-Codex has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper