LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL

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.

GLM 4.7Z.ai
Coding
33.6
Overall
22.2
Output $/M
$1.98
6
Nemotron 3.5 Super VLNVIDIA
Coding
65.5
Overall
26.5
Output $/M
$0.50
2
vs boards won of 8 shared

Decision reading

GLM 4.7 scores 33.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 65.5 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking.

Pick GLM 4.7 when what matters is Design Arena: websites or Design Arena: UI components, where it leads; pick Nemotron 3.5 Super VL when output tokens cost 4.0x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 205K tokens.

Shared results
8
GLM 4.7 only
72
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL only
8
Like-for-like categories
4 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
GLM 4.7 33.6 from 1 benchmark, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 65.5 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Web design, 7.7 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: game dev: GLM 4.7 1189 against Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 1108, 10.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.7 $1.98 against Nemotron 3.5 Super VL $0.50 per million output tokens, 4.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 takes 205K tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 1.05M.

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 4.7BarsNemotron 3.5 Super VLTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
Web design50
General10
All shared boards62
CodingDirectional onlyFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index14 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured65.5%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
LMArena WebDev1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
AA Coding Index45.3Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)82.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)89.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SciCodeNot measured47.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench33.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
ALE-Bench399.5Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding1454Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1453Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1420Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.226.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
Epoch Capabilities Index143.6Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1050Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1105Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1118Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1058Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured70.9%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
LiveBench browserNot measured4.0%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured15.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
τ²-Bench Telecom95.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Vending-Bench 2$2,377Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
GPQA Diamond80.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured78.8%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)85.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)27.4%30.7%Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleBench47.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Chess puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1443Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: expert1424Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1452Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)88.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
AA Math Index95.0Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)95.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
OTIS Mock AIME83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
ProofBench6.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: math1424Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1411Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
MMLU Pro82.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)54.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)68.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)32.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleQA Verified32.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: science1457Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1469Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1444Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
Design Arena: websites12261171GLM 4.7
Design Arena: UI components11991148GLM 4.7
Design Arena: game dev11891108GLM 4.7
Design Arena: data viz1195Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: 3D11911132GLM 4.7
Design Arena: all code categories12171155GLM 4.7
Design Arena: SVG1142Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1165Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveBench designNot measured60.7%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured64.6%Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)68.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
IFBench67.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.0%69.0%GLM 4.7
CL-bench15.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CL-bench Life10.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1401Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: English1453Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1417Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1495Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: German1426Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1439Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1399Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: French1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1434Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1423Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1446Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1411Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1400Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLLeader
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$0.0015Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL$0.0004Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.7$0.033Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL$0.0090Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.7$0.128Exceeds the context window
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL$0.035Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
MakerZ.aiNVIDIA
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 22, 2025October 15, 2026
Context window205K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.54$0.15
Output $/Mtok$1.98$0.50
Coding index33.665.5
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved task$0.29Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 better than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL for coding?

GLM 4.7 scores 33.6 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 65.5 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking. Pick GLM 4.7 when what matters is Design Arena: websites or Design Arena: UI components, where it leads; pick Nemotron 3.5 Super VL when output tokens cost 4.0x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 205K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?

GLM 4.7 costs $0.54 per million input tokens and $1.98 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs $0.15 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 4.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.7's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next