Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.3/100
Margin
5.9pts
winning →
61.16/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM-4.7 share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 11 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
19
Gemini 3.1 Pro only
28
GLM-4.7 only
11
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 19 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 55.3. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 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 3.1 Pro 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 3.1 Pro 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 3.1 Pro and GLM-4.7
CategoryGemini 3.1 ProΔGLM-4.7
MathGemini 3.1 Pro31.8Margin← 30.0GLM-4.71.8
AgenticGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.745.7
CodingGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.775.4
ReasoningGemini 3.1 Pro77.1MarginNo overlapGLM-4.7Not measured
KnowledgeGemini 3.1 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.751.8
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro82.6MarginNo overlapGLM-4.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 3.1 ProB · GLM-4.7

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 36.900%B 2.439%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 34.5
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 36.900%; GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 16.700%B 0.000%
    Winner: Gemini 3.1 ProΔ 16.7
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 16.700%; GLM-4.7 scored 0.000%. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/sGLM-4.782 tok/sGemini 3.1 Pro has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.1 Pro29.71 sGLM-4.71.10 sGLM-4.7 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.1 Pro1MGLM-4.7200KGemini 3.1 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 69.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%95.9%GLM-4.7 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 21.4%25.4%GLM-4.7 leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 32.0%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 23.2%33.3%GLM-4.7 leads
GDPval-AASource 9651165GLM-4.7 leads
Gert LabsSource 56.87%39.95%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 13.3%—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 37.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 42.2%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 0.0%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 30.3%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 16.5%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 53.8%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 73.8%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —41%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —52%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —15.5%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
LiveCodeBench ProSource 82.9%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 78.9%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 32.03%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 68.8%45.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 58.9%45.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —73.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —84.9%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.7%Not comparable
AA LiveCodeBenchSource —89.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 77.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%64.0%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
CritPtSource 17.7%1.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
GPQA-DSource 94.3%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 45.4%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 20.6%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 71.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 46.5%33.7%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 94.1%85.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 44.7%25.1%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 32.9%-34.6%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 55.3%29.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 49.9%90.3%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
GPQASource —85.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —84.3%Not comparable
HLESource —24.8%Not comparable
MathGemini 3.1 Pro wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 36.900%2.439%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 16.700%0.000%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
AIME 2025Source —95.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 93.2%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
MMMU-ProSource 83.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.2%—Not comparable
ERQASource 69.4%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 72.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource 29.0%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 81.3%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 82.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12841258Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 ProGLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource 77.1%67.9%Gemini 3.1 Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 55.3. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 36.900% and 2.439%.

Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or GLM-4.7?

Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 31.8 versus 1.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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 20, 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.