ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7

Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 73 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    73/100
    • ECI143.6
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 Flash

  2. 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

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 Flash is our pick

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against 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%.

  • CapabilityGLM-4.7Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 · Qwen3.5 Flash 143.6
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video · GLM-4.7: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 FlashGLM-4.7
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6969
Price25%8248
Inputs & features15%8035
Context window10%6032
Overall100%73/10055/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.6143.7 (best)
ECI rank#95 of 165#94 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions82.3%83.3% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics18.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics84.4% (best)83.3%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions20.3%32.2% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$0.60
Output$0.40 (best)$2.20
Cached input$0.01 (best)$0.11
Blended (3:1)$0.175 (best)$1.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)204,800 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDqwen3.5-flashglm-4.7
API providers931 (best)
ReleasedFeb 23, 2026Dec 22, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Apr 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.

  • Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
  • GLM-4.7$10.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 Flash or GLM-4.7?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against 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, Qwen3.5 Flash or GLM-4.7?

Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). 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 $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (5.7× 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 Qwen3.5 Flash 143.6 (#95 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.4–145.8 vs 141.4–145.0), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-4.7 83.3%, Qwen3.5 Flash 82.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 Flash 84.4%, GLM-4.7 83.3%; SimpleQA Verified — GLM-4.7 32.2%, Qwen3.5 Flash 20.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 Flash and GLM-4.7 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?

Qwen3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536, GLM-4.7 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video; GLM-4.7 accepts text. Qwen3.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. GLM-4.7 came out Dec 22, 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