Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
GLM-4.7-Flash is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 64 to 23. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-4.7-Flash's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 67.5 against 9.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME 2024, 68 to 9.8. GPT-4.1 nano does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GLM-4.7-Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 nano 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. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7-Flash.
Pick GLM-4.7-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
GLM-4.7-Flash
57.3
GPT-4.1 nano
65.2
GLM-4.7-Flash
67.5
GPT-4.1 nano
9.8
GLM-4.7-Flash
84
GPT-4.1 nano
83.2
GLM-4.7-Flash is ahead overall, 64 to 23. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME 2024, where the scores are 68 and 9.8.
GPT-4.1 nano has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 57.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-4.7-Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.5 versus 9.8. Inside this category, AIME 2024 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-4.7-Flash has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 84 versus 83.2. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.