ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen Turbo

Too close to call on our weighted score (GLM-4.7-Flash 48, Qwen Turbo 48). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7-Flash

    Released Jan 19, 2026

    48/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.40
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove GLM-4.7-Flash

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen Turbo

    Released Nov 1, 2024

    48/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.05 / $0.20
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen Turbo

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (GLM-4.7-Flash 48/100, Qwen Turbo 48/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7-Flash for raw capability, Qwen Turbo on price and Qwen Turbo for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen Turbo has no Capabilities Index score yet.

  • CapabilityGLM-4.7-FlashShared benchmarks: GLM-4.7-Flash 35.1% · Qwen Turbo 24.0%
  • Lowest priceQwen TurboQwen Turbo $0.087 · GLM-4.7-Flash $0.145 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen TurboQwen Turbo 1,000,000 · GLM-4.7-Flash 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7-Flash: Text · Qwen Turbo: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7-FlashQwen Turbo
CapabilityShared benchmarks50%3524
Price25%90100
Inputs & features15%3535
Context window10%3260
Overall100%48/10048/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen Turbo specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)Qwen TurboAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions45.1% (best)41.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics25.0% (best)6.1%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.06$0.05 (best)
Output$0.40$0.20 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.145$0.087 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 13 providersOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model IDglm-4.7-flashqwen-turbo
API providers19 (best)3
ReleasedJan 19, 2026Nov 1, 2024
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Apr 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GLM-4.7-Flash$1.41
  • Qwen Turbo$0.90
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen Turbo?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (GLM-4.7-Flash 48/100, Qwen Turbo 48/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7-Flash for raw capability, Qwen Turbo on price and Qwen Turbo for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen Turbo has no Capabilities Index score yet.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). GLM-4.7-Flash costs $0.06 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 13 API providers; free on Z.AI). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.087 per million tokens for Qwen Turbo versus $0.145 for GLM-4.7-Flash (1.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025): GLM-4.7-Flash 35.1% and Qwen Turbo 24.0%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-4.7-Flash 45.1%, Qwen Turbo 41.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-4.7-Flash 25.0%, Qwen Turbo 6.1%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7-Flash and Qwen Turbo yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-4.7-Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-Flash. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-Flash up to 131,072, Qwen Turbo up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7-Flash accepts text; Qwen Turbo accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7-Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Turbo is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the newest, released Jan 19, 2026. Qwen Turbo came out Nov 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-Flash Apr 2025, Qwen Turbo Apr 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons