Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GLM 4.7 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 8 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
7
GLM 4.7 FlashZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
14.9
Output $/M
$0.40
1
vs boards won of 8 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 200K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Shared results
8
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
7
GLM 4.7 Flash only
35
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, GLM 4.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 67.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 31.3% against GLM 4.7 Flash 98.8%, 67.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 per million output tokens, 3.8x apart.
Context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, GLM 4.7 Flash 200K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 3.1 Flash LiteBarsGLM 4.7 FlashTies
Coding10
Agentic work01
Reasoning30
Math10
General20
All shared boards71
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
SciCode43.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)24.2%22.0%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
WeirdML52.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1382Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1389Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured14.9Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Epoch Capabilities Index144.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.3%98.8%GLM 4.7 Flash
DeepResearch Bench37.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.2%58.1%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.2%7.6%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)81.8%60.5%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1356Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1357Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1369Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%58.3%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 327.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1355Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1369Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1358Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1343Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1357Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1343Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1194Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1208Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1135Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1123Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1121Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1178Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1038Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
IFBench77.2%60.8%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)74.3%41.7%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
DTBench76.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMCA35.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMArena TextNot measured1351Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1327Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1296Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1373Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1330Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1403Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1336Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1283Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1332Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1350Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1333Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1291Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1342Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1345Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1320Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1304Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.0010Fits in one request
GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.017Fits in one request
GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0045Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.065Fits in one request
GLM 4.7 Flash$0.017Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteZ.ai GLM 4.7 Flash
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 7, 2026January 19, 2026
Context window1.05M200K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.0653
Output $/Mtok$1.50$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite better than GLM 4.7 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the edge where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 200K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM 4.7 Flash?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or GLM 4.7 Flash?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs GLM 4.7 Flash comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next