Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Step 3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #32; Step 3.5 Flash unranked
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Step 3.5 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 0 to Step 3.5 Flash.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- GLM-4.7 only
- 31
- Step 3.5 Flash only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GLM-4.7 and Step 3.5 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Step 3.5 Flash yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Step 3.5 Flash is priced at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. Step 3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Step 3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.3 output | GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Step 3.5 Flash87 tok/s | Step 3.5 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Step 3.5 Flash3.03 s | GLM-4.7 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Step 3.5 Flash256K | Step 3.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.5 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 |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 95.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.5 Flash | 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.5 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 |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GLM-4.7 and Step 3.5 Flash on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for GLM-4.7 and Step 3.5 Flash today?
GLM-4.7: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Step 3.5 Flash: $0.10 input / $0.30 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.