ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507

Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 comes out ahead, 59 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove GLM-4.7
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507

    Released Jul 28, 2025

    59/100
    • ECI137.3
    • Price$0.10 / $0.30
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 is our pick

Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on price and context window. GLM-4.7 wins on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGLM-4.7Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 · Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 137.3
  • Lowest priceQwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 $0.15 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 262,144 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7: Text · Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6961
Price25%4885
Inputs & features15%3525
Context window10%3237
Overall100%55/10059/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507Alibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.7 (best)137.3
ECI rank#94 of 165 (best)#124 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3% (best)55.6%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3% (best)62.2%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$0.10 (best)
Output$2.20$0.30 (best)
Cached input$0.11—
Blended (3:1)$1.00$0.15 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIMedian of 12 providers
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesNo
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenApache 2.0
API model IDglm-4.7—
API providers31 (best)14
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Jul 28, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025—
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$10.40
  • Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507$1.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7 or Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507?

Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on price and context window. GLM-4.7 wins on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507?

Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (median across 12 API providers). GLM-4.7 costs $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 versus $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (6.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 (#94 of 165) and Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 137.3 (#124 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (141.4–145.8 vs 131.7–139.4), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-4.7 83.3%, Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 55.6%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-4.7 83.3%, Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 62.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7 and Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-4.7 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?

Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Qwen3 30B-A3B Instruct 2507 came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025.

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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons