Back to Value Frontier

Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 11:18:27 AM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash against Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash is approximately 8% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash leads with a statistical ELO score of 1150. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash
Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash
Performance (ELO)
1150
1150
Input Cost / 1M
$0.06
$0.10
Output Cost / 1M
$0.40
$0.40
Context Window
202,752 tokens
1,000,000 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Tie is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash cheaper than Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash?

Yes. Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash is cheaper for both input and output generation compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash. Exploring alternatives often yields cost reductions.

Which model has the larger context window?

The Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 1,000,000 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs Hunter AlphaCompare Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs Healer AlphaCompare Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super (free)Compare Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs MiniMax: MiniMax M2.5 (free)