Agentic
Like-for-like- GLM-4.7
- 45.7
- Step 3.7 Flash
- 66.4
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Step 3.7 Flash leads
GLM-4.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
Updated August 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GLM-4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 60.91 versus 51.05, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-4.7 does not fit this workload in one request. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
10 GLM-4.7 only
3 Shared
8 Step 3.7 Flash only
- Shared results
- 3
- GLM-4.7 only
- 10
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- 75.4
- Step 3.7 Flash
- 56.3
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- 51.8
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- 1.8
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Step 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GLM-4.7 | Step 3.7 Flash | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 45.7 | 66.4 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Coding | 75.4 | 56.3 | Not comparable3 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.8 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 1.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
BrowseComp
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GLM-4.7
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.00077
- Fits in one request
GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GLM-4.7
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.01345
- Fits in one request
GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GLM-4.7
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Step 3.7 Flash
- $0.0555
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GLM-4.7 does not fit this workload in one request. Step 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGLM-4.7Step 3.7 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GLM-4.7
200K
Step 3.7 Flash
256K
API model ID
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GLM-4.7
No comparable hosted API rate
Step 3.7 Flash
Not published
Documented inputs
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Step 3.7 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GLM-4.7
Reasoning
Step 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
GLM-4.7
Open Weight
Step 3.7 Flash
Open Weight
License
GLM-4.7
Open Weight
Step 3.7 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
GLM-4.7
2025-10-01
Step 3.7 Flash
2026-05-29
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- GLM-4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 60.91 versus 51.05, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Step 3.7 Flash has the larger documented window (256K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GLM-4.741%SourceStep 3.7 Flash59.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash leads this result
BrowseComp
GLM-4.752%SourceStep 3.7 Flash75.8%SourceStep 3.7 Flash leads this result
VITA-Bench
GLM-4.715.5%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceGLM-4.739.95%Step 3.7 Flash51.57%Step 3.7 Flash leads this result
DeepSearchQA
GLM-4.7—Step 3.7 Flash92.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
GLM-4.7—Step 3.7 Flash49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
GLM-4.7—Step 3.7 Flash67.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
GLM-4.7—Step 3.7 Flash47.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
GLM-4.773.8%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
GLM-4.784.9%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
GLM-4.758.7%SourceStep 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GLM-4.7—Step 3.7 Flash56.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GLM-4.7—Step 3.7 Flash59.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
GLM-4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 60.91 versus 51.05, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-4.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which costs less, GLM-4.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, GLM-4.7 or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 30, 2026
Watch GLM-4.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.