Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen: Qwen3.5-9B vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash

GLM 4.7 Flash (medium) leads on average score with 4.3 vs 3.8. Qwen3.5-9B (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.036 vs $0.166. Qwen3.5-9B (medium) is faster at 82.24s vs 142.59s, with pass rates of 25.8% vs 31.8%.

Recommended modelGLM 4.7 Flash (medium)It has the strongest score in this comparison (4.3) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Last updated at: 2026-07-25

Metric Qwen3.5-9B Qwen3.5-9B medium Release: 2026-03-02 GLM 4.7 Flash GLM 4.7 Flash medium Release: 2026-01-19
Score 3.8 4.3
Rank #220 #210
Reliability 5.0 7.8
Consistency 8.1 7.0
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 25.8% 31.8%
Flaky tests 5 8
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.187 4.147
Total Cost $0.036 $0.166
Input Price $0.100 / 1M $0.060 / 1M
Output Price $0.150 / 1M $0.400 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 17,070 79,051
Output Tokens 29,045 43,754
Reasoning Tokens 209,516 374,109
Response Time (avg) 82.24s 142.59s
Response Time (max) 226.38s 1539.97s
Response Time (total) 1315.88s 1996.21s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#220 Qwen3.5-9B

medium
Cost
$0.001
Time
35.9s
Tokens
3,030 tok

#210 GLM 4.7 Flash

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
186.2s
Tokens
12,112 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.5-9B 2.9 10.0 0.0% 0 100.88s 2,396 7,890 41,129
GLM 4.7 Flash 3.2 7.4 11.1% 1 55.33s 3,106 4,981 22,387

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair