Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGLM-4.7
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | GLM-4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 125B | — |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 262k | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.60 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $2.20 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.11 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.40DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.75DeepInfra |
| Benchmarks | ||
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 91.9% | 84.9% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 35.9% | 24.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 91.7% | 85.7% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 62.5% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 73.8% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 81% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 58.7% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | 48.1% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 41% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 55.7% | — |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | 73.9% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 73.5% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 52% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 42.8% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 81.3% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 19.4% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 24.3% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | 51.2% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.6% | — |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 76.6% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 26 2026 | Dec 22 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsClaude Opus 5GLM-4.7vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGPT-5.6 SolGLM-4.7vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-4.7vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMuse GlimmerGLM-4.7vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGrok 4.6GLM-4.7vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-4.7vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads GLM-4.7 on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (LiveCodeBench, Humanity's Last Exam, GPQA Diamond). Only GLM-4.7 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. GLM-4.7 shipped 247 days before Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 262k (Qwen3.8-Flash-Next) vs 128k (GLM-4.7).
On LiveCodeBench, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 91.9% vs GLM-4.7 at 84.9%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 35.9% vs GLM-4.7 at 24.8%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 91.7% vs GLM-4.7 at 85.7%.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released by Qwen on Aug 26 2026.
GLM-4.7 was released by Z.ai on Dec 22 2025.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads on LiveCodeBench — Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 91.9% vs GLM-4.7 84.9%.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 35.9% vs GLM-4.7 24.8%.
Only GLM-4.7 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has a 262k context window; GLM-4.7 has 128k.