Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 49.2 to 20.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- GLM-4.7-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1483 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| DTBench | — | 92.3% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 153.68 |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1488 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1460 |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.7 Max share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.