Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 16 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Of the 16 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Z.ai, every model from both labs.
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.7-Flash? The short answer
Pick GLM-4.7-Flash: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 14.9 against 12.7) and costs less.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper: $0.15 against $0.97 per million tokens, 6.7 times less.
- GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 14.9 against 12.7.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is newer: released 19 Jan 2026, against 25 Jul 2025 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does better for reasoning and knowledge and writing.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | GLM-4.7-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $3.00 out | $0.060 in · $0.40 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.97 | $0.15 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.75 (Alibaba) | $0.15 (Venice, FP8) |
| Intelligence Index | 12.7 | 14.9 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Released | 25 Jul 2025 | 19 Jan 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Developer based in | China | China |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 173 of 387 measured | 1,400 | 1,365 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 170 of 380 measured | 1,404 | 1,368 |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 200 of 385 measured | 1,371 | 1,307 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 147 · 128 of 243 measured | 12.7 | 14.9 |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 114 · 186 of 231 measured | 79.0% | 58.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 122 · 164 of 242 measured | 15.9% | 7.6% |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 139 · 179 of 230 measured | 32.4 | 25.0no reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 166 · 188 of 230 measured | 30.0% | 39.0%no reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 194 · 45 of 230 measured | 0.31 | 0.37think-prefill reasoning |
Show all 16 results (7 more)
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 85 · 169 of 338 measured | 1,466 | 1,386 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 142 · 178 of 387 measured | 1,385 | 1,348 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 189 of 386 measured | 1,377 | 1,331 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 101 · 78 of 195 measured | 51.2% | 60.8% |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 99 · 169 of 233 measured | 72.0% | 41.7% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 116 · 87 of 190 measured | 13.6% | 22.0% |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 101 · 2 of 193 measured | 53.2% | 98.8% |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 better than GLM-4.7-Flash?
Pick GLM-4.7-Flash: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 14.9 against 12.7) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper: $0.15 against $0.97 per million tokens, 6.7 times less.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.7-Flash?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 117 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 142 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.7-Flash?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 122 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 150 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.7-Flash?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 92 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 109 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-Flash: 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 and GLM-4.7-Flash on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.