Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
Z-ai

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs GLM-4.7-Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math

GLM-4.7-Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Supports vision
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Context Window
GLM-4.7-Flash
Speed
GLM-4.7-Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen2.5 72B InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen2.5 72B InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenZ-ai
ReleasedSep 2024Jan 2026

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

GLM-4.7-Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

GLM-4.7-Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.06/M tokens. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.39/M tokens.
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 11.9, compared to GLM-4.7-Flash's score of 11.0.
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window, while GLM-4.7-Flash has a 202,752 token context window.
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct does not support vision. GLM-4.7-Flash supports vision.