ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7

Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 66 to 55 and 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
  2. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    66/100
    • ECI140.6
    • Price$0.30 / $2.50
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash

  3. 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
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55) and GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8 · GLM-4.7 143.7 · Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6
  • Lowest priceGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · GLM-4.7: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and GLM-4.7Publishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Gemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%696569
Price25%495148
Inputs & features15%3510035
Context window10%376132
Overall100%55/10066/10055/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogleGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.8 (best)140.6143.7
ECI rank#93 of 165 (best)#110 of 165#94 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions80.1%—83.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.7% (best)—83.3%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions40.4% (best)—32.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30 (best)$0.30 (best)$0.60
Output$2.90$2.50$2.20 (best)
Cached input—$0.03 (best)$0.11
Blended (3:1)$0.95$0.85 (best)$1.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 11 providersOfficial Google APIOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)204,800 tokens
Max output81,920 tokens65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoYesNo
VideoNoYesNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenApache 2.0ProprietaryOpen
API model ID—gemini-2.5-flashglm-4.7
API providers1232 (best)31
ReleasedJul 25, 2025Jun 17, 2025Dec 22, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Jan 2025Apr 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.

  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
  • GLM-4.7$10.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM-4.7?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55) and GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507, Gemini 2.5 Flash or GLM-4.7?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 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 $0.85 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash versus $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (1.1× as much) and $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8 (#93 of 165), GLM-4.7 143.7 (#94 of 165) and Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6 (#110 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.9–145.2 vs 141.4–145.8), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507, Gemini 2.5 Flash and GLM-4.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, GLM-4.7 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; GLM-4.7 accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and GLM-4.7 publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025; Gemini 2.5 Flash came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025, 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