Compare / Qwen3.5-27B vs GLM-4.7
Qwen3.5-27B vs GLM-4.7
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 20 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
Of the 20 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.
Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7? The short answer
They score and cost about the same: pick on the results below that match your work.
- They cost about the same: $0.74 and $0.90 per million tokens (three input to one output).
- They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (22.9 and 22.2).
- Qwen3.5-27B is newer: released 24 Feb 2026, against 22 Dec 2025 for GLM-4.7.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: GLM-4.7 does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.5-27B | GLM-4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.27 in · $2.16 out | $0.54 in · $1.98 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.74 | $0.90 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.54 (Alibaba) | $0.74 (DeepInfra, FP4) |
| Intelligence Index | 22.9 | 22.2 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 204,800 tokens |
| Released | 24 Feb 2026 (newer) | 22 Dec 2025 |
| 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 | Qwen3.5-27B | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 129 · 81 of 387 measured | 1,409 | 1,441 |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 112 · 72 of 163 measured | 1,420 | 1,444 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 128 · 81 of 380 measured | 1,408 | 1,442 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 86 · 92 of 243 measured | 22.9 | 22.2 |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 74 · 73 of 231 measured | 85.8% | 85.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 95 · 88 of 242 measured | 23.9% | 27.4% |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 99 · 81 of 230 measured | 42.4think-prefill reasoning | 47.4thinking reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 49 · 158 of 230 measured | 11.0%think-prefill reasoning | 28.0%no reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 147 · 31 of 230 measured | 0.33no reasoning | 0.38thinking reasoning |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results | ||
| Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 80 · 74 of 104 measured | 12.1% | 11.7% |
| Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 31 · 31 of 104 measured | 99.8% | 99.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 reported by Vending-Bench 2 · 1 result | ||
| Money after a yearUS dollars, higher is better 50 · 39 of 58 measured | $201.98 | $2,377 |
Show all 20 results (8 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.5-27B | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results | ||
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 145 · 88 of 385 measured | 1,358 | 1,405 |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 112 · 100 of 338 measured | 1,441 | 1,449 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 88 of 387 measured | 1,401 | 1,425 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 135 · 84 of 386 measured | 1,380 | 1,416 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 24 · 62 of 195 measured | 75.6% | 67.9% |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 63 · 105 of 233 measured | 77.7% | 71.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 61 · 63 of 190 measured | 32.6% | 31.8% |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 12 of 193 measured | 93.9% | 95.9% |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.5-27B better than GLM-4.7?
They score and cost about the same: pick on the results below that match your work.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7?
They cost about the same: $0.74 and $0.90 per million tokens (three input to one output).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 ranks 102 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 145 for Qwen3.5-27B.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 ranks 80 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 82 for Qwen3.5-27B.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 ranks 72 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 98 for Qwen3.5-27B.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 ranks 103 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 121 for Qwen3.5-27B.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7?
Qwen3.5-27B: 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7.
Run Qwen3.5-27B and GLM-4.7 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.