Compare / Qwen3.5-27B vs GLM-4.7-Flash

Qwen3.5-27B vs GLM-4.7-Flash

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 19 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3.5-27B Released 24 Feb 2026 · $0.27 in · $2.16 out
Z.aiGLM-4.7-Flash Released 19 Jan 2026 · $0.060 in · $0.40 out
Qwen3.5-27B wins 16GLM-4.7-Flash wins 3

Of the 19 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-Flash? The short answer

Pick Qwen3.5-27B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 22.9 against 14.9). Pick GLM-4.7-Flash if cost matters more: it costs 5.1 times less per token.

  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper: $0.15 against $0.74 per million tokens, 5.1 times less.
  • Qwen3.5-27B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 22.9 against 14.9.
  • Qwen3.5-27B is newer: released 24 Feb 2026, against 19 Jan 2026 for GLM-4.7-Flash.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.5-27B does better for reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

22.9
Intelligence Index
14.9
$0.74
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.15
262,144
Context window, tokens
200,000

Every fact side by side

Qwen3.5-27BGLM-4.7-Flash
Price per million tokens$0.27 in · $2.16 out$0.060 in · $0.40 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.74$0.15
Cheapest host, blended$0.54 (Alibaba)$0.15 (Venice, FP8)
Intelligence Index22.914.9
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window262,144 tokens200,000 tokens
Released24 Feb 2026 (newer)19 Jan 2026
WeightsOpenOpen
Developer based inChinaChina

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.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 145 of 164 not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 82 of 198 142 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 98 of 188 150 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 121 of 152 109 of 152
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) not measured 24 of 24

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.

MeasureQwen3.5-27BGLM-4.7-Flash
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 129 · 173 of 387 measured 1,409 1,365
Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 112 · 149 of 163 measured 1,420 1,370
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 128 · 170 of 380 measured 1,408 1,368
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 86 · 128 of 243 measured 22.9 14.9
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 74 · 186 of 231 measured 85.8% 58.1%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 95 · 164 of 242 measured 23.9% 7.6%
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 99 · 179 of 230 measured 42.4think-prefill reasoning 25.0no reasoning
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 49 · 188 of 230 measured 11.0%think-prefill reasoning 39.0%no reasoning
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 147 · 45 of 230 measured 0.33no reasoning 0.37think-prefill reasoning
Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results
Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 80 · 47 of 104 measured 12.1% 9.3%
Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 31 · 98 of 104 measured 99.8% 91.6%
Show all 19 results (8 more)
MeasureQwen3.5-27BGLM-4.7-Flash
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 145 · 200 of 385 measured 1,358 1,307
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 112 · 169 of 338 measured 1,441 1,386
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 178 of 387 measured 1,401 1,348
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 135 · 189 of 386 measured 1,380 1,331
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 24 · 78 of 195 measured 75.6% 60.8%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 63 · 169 of 233 measured 77.7% 41.7%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 61 · 87 of 190 measured 32.6% 22.0%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 2 of 193 measured 93.9% 98.8%

Quick answers

Is Qwen3.5-27B better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

Pick Qwen3.5-27B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 22.9 against 14.9). Pick GLM-4.7-Flash if cost matters more: it costs 5.1 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper: $0.15 against $0.74 per million tokens, 5.1 times less.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7-Flash?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks 82 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, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7-Flash?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks 98 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, Qwen3.5-27B or GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash ranks 109 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-Flash?

Qwen3.5-27B: 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-Flash.

Run Qwen3.5-27B 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.

Try the playgroundTalk to us