Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.5 Flash
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); Qwen3.5 Flash #134 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.5 Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 0 to Qwen3.5 Flash.
Updated July 18, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GLM-4.7 only
- 28
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
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 47.65. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | Margin→ 2.9 | Qwen3.5 Flash4.7 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-4.775.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.751.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 FlashNot 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 6.207%Winner: Qwen3.5 FlashΔ 3.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%; Qwen3.5 Flash scored 6.207%. Qwen3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Qwen3.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash | 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 | Qwen3.5 Flash | 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 |
MathQwen3.5 Flash wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 47.65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 2.439% and 6.207%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 4.7 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
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.