Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #32; LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked
BenchAlign evidence: GLM-4.7 supported; LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and LFM2.5-8B-A1B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 5 to LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- GLM-4.7 only
- 18
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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, 62 to 37. 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 LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
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 | GLM-4.7 | Δ | LFM2.5-8B-A1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | Margin→ 48.2 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-4.775.4 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.752.1 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | GLM-4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 41% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 52% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 15.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 16.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | — | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 31.8% | 4.5% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.1% | 7.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 24.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 8.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.9% | 51.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 25.1% | 6.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -34.6% | -33.3% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 29.3% | 9.4% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.3% | 47.0% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 62 to 37.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.7 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 50 versus 1.8. Inside this category, AIME 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.