Model Comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Z AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Output price, TTFT
Lowest Price
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning)
51.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning)
11.0 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) leads GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning) by 27.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) by 1.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, TTFT, Latency.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Z GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.07/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Z AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Jan 19, 2026 | Aug 6, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 133.4 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1212ms | — |
| Latency | 1212ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 24.1 | 51.2 |
| Intelligence | 22.1 | 18.2 |
| Coding | 11.0 | 9.5 |
| Math | — | 82.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 45.2% | 66.7% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 74.3% |
| HLE | 4.9% | 5.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 64.1% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 82.7% |
| SciCode | 25.5% | 25.6% |
| LCR | 14.7% | 37.7% |
| IFBench | 46.3% | 49.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 91.8% | 25.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 3.8% | 1.5% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 51.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning) reaches a 11.0 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
GLM-4.7-Flash (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 4B 2507 (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
