Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported); Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B #149 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 13 to Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B.
Updated July 17, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- GLM-4.7 only
- 16
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.98 to 44.09. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-4.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.4 against 32. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 85.7% to 72.2%. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 | GLM-4.7 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GLM-4.775.4 | Margin← 43.4 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B32.0 |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.752.1 | Margin→ 24.3 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.4 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | GLM-4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B74.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 85.7%B 72.2%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 13.5GPQA: GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 72.2%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 84.3%B 77.3%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 7MMLU-Pro: GLM-4.7 scored 84.3%; Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B scored 77.3%. 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 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B256K | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | 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% | 45.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | — | 47.4% | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-4.7 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | 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% | 8.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.1% | 27.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v5Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 32% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeNemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | 72.2% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.3% | 77.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| HLESource | 24.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 14.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.9% | 46.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 25.1% | 5.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -34.6% | -56.0% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 29.3% | 14.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.3% | 83.1% | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 70.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLongBench-DocSource | — | 57.5% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 72.2% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.98 to 44.09. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 85.7% and 72.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-4.7 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 52.1. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B?
GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.4 versus 32. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard 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.