Model comparison
Exaone 4.0 32B vs GLM-4.7
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B unranked; GLM-4.7 #32
BenchAlign evidence: Exaone 4.0 32B estimated; GLM-4.7 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Exaone 4.0 32B and GLM-4.7 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Exaone 4.0 32B; 17 to GLM-4.7.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Exaone 4.0 32B only
- 0
- GLM-4.7 only
- 17
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-4.7 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Exaone 4.0 32B | Δ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Exaone 4.0 32B81.8 | Margin← 29.7 | GLM-4.752.1 |
| Agentic | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.745.7 |
| Coding | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.775.4 |
| Math | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.71.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 81.8%B 84.3%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 2.5MMLU-Pro: Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%; GLM-4.7 scored 84.3%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Exaone 4.0 32B | GLM-4.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | GLM-4.782 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | GLM-4.71.10 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Exaone 4.0 32B128K | GLM-4.7200K | GLM-4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 4.1% | 95.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 41% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 52% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 15.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.95% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1165 | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 1.5% | 31.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 25.2% | 45.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 45.3% | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 81.8% | 84.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 6.0% | 33.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 62.8% | 85.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.9% | 25.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -62.3% | -34.6% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 10.4% | 29.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.0% | 90.3% | Exaone 4.0 32B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24.8% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1260 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 33.5% | 67.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Exaone 4.0 32B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 81.8% and 84.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Exaone 4.0 32B or GLM-4.7?
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 52.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.