Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash leads GLM 4.7 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.5 to 14.9, and GLM 4.7 Flash costs 2.9x less per output token ($0.40 vs $1.15 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 14 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.7 FlashZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
14.9
Output $/M
$0.40
2
Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
19.5
Output $/M
$1.15
12
vs boards won of 14 shared

GLM 4.7 Flash or Step 3.7 Flash: 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 2.9x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.15 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
14
GLM 4.7 Flash only
29
Step 3.7 Flash only
4
Like-for-like categories
6 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.7 Flash not benchmarked, Step 3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 19.2 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): GLM 4.7 Flash 41.7% against Step 3.7 Flash 73.7%, 32.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 against Step 3.7 Flash $1.15 per million output tokens, 2.9x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 Flash takes 200K tokens, Step 3.7 Flash 262K.

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
CategoryGLM 4.7 FlashBarsStep 3.7 FlashTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work10
Reasoning02
Web design16
General02
All shared boards212
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured39.6Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
SciCodeNot measured43.9%Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%35.6%Step 3.7 Flash
ALE-BenchNot measured694.1Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding1382Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.919.5Step 3.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom98.8%98.5%GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.1%80.9%Step 3.7 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.6%21.4%Step 3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)60.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1356Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: expert1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1369Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
OTIS Mock AIME58.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: math1355Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1369Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
LMArena Text: science1358Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites11941196Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: UI components12081179GLM 4.7 Flash
Design Arena: game dev11351158Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: data viz11231172Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: 3D11211129Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: all code categories11781182Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: SVG10381085Step 3.7 Flash
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1152Only Step 3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 FlashLeader
IFBench60.8%67.3%Step 3.7 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)41.7%73.7%Step 3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1351Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1327Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1296Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: English1373Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-English1330Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1403Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: German1336Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Korean1283Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French1332Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian1333Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Polish1291Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1342Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1345Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1320Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1304Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashStep 3.7 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

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.0008Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0045Fits in one request
Step 3.7 Flash$0.013Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.017Exceeds the context window
Step 3.7 Flash$0.051Fits in one request

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 GLM 4.7 Flash and Step 3.7 Flash
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7 FlashStepFun Step 3.7 Flash
MakerZ.aiStepFun
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 19, 2026May 28, 2026
Context window200K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.0653$0.20
Output $/Mtok$0.40$1.15
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 Flash better than Step 3.7 Flash 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 2.9x cheaper ($0.40 vs $1.15 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?

GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Step 3.7 Flash costs $0.20 and $1.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash comparison based on?

14 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 Step 3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next