Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #32; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 4 to Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GLM-4.7 only
- 29
- Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 62 versus 59. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GLM-4.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.8 against 69.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 85.7% to 57.6%. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GLM-4.7 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
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 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GLM-4.752.1 | Margin→ 5.5 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking57.6 |
| Coding | GLM-4.773.8 | Margin← 3.9 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking69.9 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measured |
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GLM-4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking76.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 85.7%B 57.6%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 28.1GPQA: GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking scored 57.6%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
LiveCodeBench
CodingA 84.9%B 69.9%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 15LiveCodeBench: GLM-4.7 scored 84.9%; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking scored 69.9%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking128K | GLM-4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking | 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 |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 95.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | — | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-4.7 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | 84.9% | 69.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 45.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 31.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | 57.6% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 24.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 25.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -34.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 29.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 62 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 85.7% and 57.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-4.7 or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking?
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.6 versus 52.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking?
GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 69.9. Inside this category, LiveCodeBench 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.