Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GLM-4.7 only
- 28
- Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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 58.01. 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 Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
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 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | Margin→ 4.6 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Coding | GLM-4.775.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.751.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 2.439%B 8.481%Winner: Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Δ 6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128K | GLM-4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | — | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
MathQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1255 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 58.01. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 2.439% and 8.481%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 6.4 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
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.