Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 100% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 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 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1674 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| SciCode | — | 53.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1496 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| DTBench | — | 92% |
| LMCA | — | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.41 |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | 92.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1507 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1483 |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | 1492 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1467 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1479 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1489 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen3.8 Max share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.