GLM 4.7 Flash vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
GLM 4.7 Flash leads Llama 3.1 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 14.9 to 6.6, and GLM 4.7 Flash costs 1.4x less per output token ($0.40 vs $0.56 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 34 benchmarks have a result for both.
GLM 4.7 Flash or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($0.40 vs $0.56 per million) and a larger context window (200K against 131K tokens).
- Shared results
- 34
- GLM 4.7 Flash only
- 9
- Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 4.7 Flash
GLM 4.7 Flash leads, 14.9 against 6.6.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GLM 4.7 Flash has a Design Arena: websites result, 1194.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GLM 4.7 Flash
GLM 4.7 Flash takes 200K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 4.7 Flash
GLM 4.7 Flash $0.0003, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 4.7 Flash not benchmarked, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 83.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: GLM 4.7 Flash 98.8% against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 15.2%, 83.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 4.7 Flash takes 200K tokens, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 131K.
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.
| Category | GLM 4.7 Flash | Bars | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 3 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 6 | 0 | ||
| Math | 3 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 4 | 0 | ||
| General | 16 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 34 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 23.2% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 22.0% | 3.0% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 9.0% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1382 | 1260 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1389 | 1260 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 14.9 | 6.6 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 125.9 | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 98.8% | 15.2% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| BALROG | Not measured | 27.9% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| TheAgentCompany | Not measured | 6.9% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 58.1% | 40.9% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 7.6% | 4.5% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 60.5% | 44.2% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1356 | 1241 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1357 | 1209 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1369 | 1261 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 4.0 | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 4.0% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 58.3% | 3.6% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| MATH level 5 | Not measured | 36.7% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1355 | 1252 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1369 | 1253 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 67.6% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| MMLU | Not measured | 80.1% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1358 | 1276 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1343 | 1257 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1357 | 1283 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1343 | 1235 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1194 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1208 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1135 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1123 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1121 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1178 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1038 | Not measured | Only 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 index160
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 60.8% | 34.4% | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 41.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 60.0% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 14.8% | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1261 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1327 | 1231 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1296 | 1232 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: English | 1373 | 1294 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1330 | 1219 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1403 | 1215 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: German | 1336 | 1222 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1132 | Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1283 | 1140 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: French | 1332 | 1262 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1350 | 1253 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1333 | 1234 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1291 | Not measured | Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1342 | 1256 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1345 | 1241 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1320 | 1236 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1304 | 1230 | GLM 4.7 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 4.7 Flash | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
GLM 4.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GLM 4.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 4.7 Flash | Meta Llama 3.1 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Meta Llama |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | January 19, 2026 | July 23, 2024 |
| Context window | 200K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0653 | $0.56 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $0.56 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 4.7 Flash better than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 1.4x cheaper ($0.40 vs $0.56 per million) and a larger context window (200K against 131K tokens).
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 Flash or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?
GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 and $0.56. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 Flash or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?
GLM 4.7 Flash, with 200K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 Flash vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct comparison based on?
34 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.7 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.