Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

48.09/100
Margin
13.1pts
winning →
61.16/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Flash #130 (Supported); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM-4.7 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemini 2.5 Flash; 16 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
14
Gemini 2.5 Flash only
1
GLM-4.7 only
16
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 7 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 BenchAlign aggregate, 61.16 to 48.09. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemini 2.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GLM-4.7 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 2.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.

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 scores and score margins for Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM-4.7
CategoryGemini 2.5 FlashΔGLM-4.7
MathGemini 2.5 Flash4.7Margin← 2.9GLM-4.71.8
AgenticGemini 2.5 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.745.7
CodingGemini 2.5 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.775.4
KnowledgeGemini 2.5 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.751.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 2.5 FlashB · GLM-4.7

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 0.000%
    Winner: Gemini 2.5 FlashΔ 4.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 2.5 Flash scored 4.167%; GLM-4.7 scored 0.000%. Gemini 2.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.844%B 2.439%
    Winner: Gemini 2.5 FlashΔ 2.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 2.5 Flash scored 4.844%; GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%. Gemini 2.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 2.5 Flash$0.3 input / $2.5 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 2.5 Flash221 tok/sGLM-4.782 tok/sGemini 2.5 Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 2.5 Flash0.50 sGLM-4.71.10 sGemini 2.5 Flash reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 2.5 Flash1MGLM-4.7200KGemini 2.5 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 14.9%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 —1165Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
AA-SciCodeSource 29.1%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
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
AA-LCRSource 45.9%64.0%GLM-4.7 leads
CritPtSource 1.4%1.7%GLM-4.7 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.1%33.7%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 68.3%85.9%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-HLESource 5.1%25.1%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -42.0%-34.6%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 26.5%29.3%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 93.3%90.3%GLM-4.7 leads
GPQASource —85.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —84.3%Not comparable
HLESource —24.8%Not comparable
MathGemini 2.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 4.844%2.439%Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%0.000%Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
AIME 2025Source —95.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 65.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11451255GLM-4.7 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource 39.0%67.9%GLM-4.7 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 48.09. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 4.167% and 0.000%.

Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM-4.7?

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 4.7 versus 1.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.