Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Wizardlm 13b

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Wizardlm 13b Microsoft

30.8

Rank #272 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 61.1 to 30.7.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Wizardlm 13b specifications
GLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index41.730.8
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3610

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), Wizardlm 13b: 29.6 (#293)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Coding14541035
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), Wizardlm 13b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), Wizardlm 13b: 18.5 (#265)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts14431018
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), Wizardlm 13b: 27.8 (#235)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Math14231017
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74), Wizardlm 13b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—
LMArena Expert1424—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), Wizardlm 13b: 27.3 (#272)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Non-English14171034
LMArena Chinese14951023
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1426—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Russian1423—
LMArena Spanish1433—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), Wizardlm 13b: 53.7 (#280)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Instruction Following14111049

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#268)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Longer Query14321054
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), Wizardlm 13b: 30.7 (#282)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Wizardlm 13b
LMArena Text14361077
LMArena Creative Writing14011090
LMArena Multi-Turn14461047
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Wizardlm 13b?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Wizardlm 13b share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper