Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Plus in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 50.6 to 37.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 32.2% for GLM-4.7 and 44.1% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 205K.
  • GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.747.3
Released2025-12-222026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$3
Results tracked3637

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena WebDev14351461
SciCode45.1%40.7%
LMArena Coding14541467
ALE-Bench399.48670.15
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 22,3775,115
Terminal-Bench33.4%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
CritPt1.7%2.9%
Chess Puzzles6%17%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431449
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53147.67
SimpleBench47.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%93.3%
LMArena Math14231450
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%8.3%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
ProofBench6%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond83.3%88.4%
SimpleQA Verified32.2%44.1%
LMArena Expert14241456
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English14171424
LMArena Chinese14951478
LMArena French14321454
LMArena German14261451
LMArena Japanese14391389
LMArena Korean14011381
LMArena Russian14231434
LMArena Spanish14331432

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14111425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
CL-bench15.9%20.3%
LMArena Longer Query14321440
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Qwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text14361437
LMArena Creative Writing14011405
LMArena Multi-Turn14461438
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.

Is GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper