Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3.5 Plus
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 Plus #136 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Qwen3.5 Plus share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 2 to Qwen3.5 Plus.
Updated July 17, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GLM-4.7 only
- 29
- Qwen3.5 Plus only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Plus 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, 60.98 to 46.99. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 Plus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $2.40 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 Plus 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 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | Margin→ 14.5 | Qwen3.5 Plus16.3 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 PlusNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-4.775.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 PlusNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.752.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 PlusNot 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 21.034%Winner: Qwen3.5 PlusΔ 18.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 21.034%. Qwen3.5 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 0.000%B 2.083%Winner: Qwen3.5 PlusΔ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GLM-4.7 scored 0.000%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 2.083%. Qwen3.5 Plus 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 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5 Plus$0.4 input / $2.4 output | GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Qwen3.5 Plus1M | Qwen3.5 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Plus | 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 |
| JobBenchSource | — | 18.5% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Plus | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 15.74% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Plus | 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 Plus wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Qwen3.5 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.5 Plus?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.98 to 46.99. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 2.439% and 21.034%.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 16.3 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.