Skip to content

Qwen3.8 27B vs GLM 4.7

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

74#133
vs
GLM 4.7

Zhipu AI

74#135
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalQwen3.8 27BDeltaGLM 4.7
Capabilities
83
+17
67
Benchmarks
72
0
72
Pricing
97
-1
98
Context window size
95
+11
84
Recency
100
+12
88
Output Capacity
85
--
85
Overall Result
3 wins
of 6
2 wins
Qwen3.8 27B wins 3 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (22 data points)
Qwen3.8 27BGLM 4.7
Qwen3.8 27B

73.7

current score

Leader

Qwen3.8 27B

right now

GLM 4.7

73.6

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

Per request$0.001900
Daily$6.33
Monthly$190.00
Annual$2280.00

GLM 4.7

Zhipu AI

Best Value
Per request$0.001275
Daily$4.25
Monthly$127.50
Annual$1530.00

GLM 4.7 saves you $62.50/month

That's $750.00/year compared to Qwen3.8 27B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

33% cheaper
Choose GLM 4.7 for cost optimization

Qwen3.8 27B pricing:
Input:$0.40/M tokens
Output:$3.00/M tokens
GLM 4.7 pricing:
Input:$0.40/M tokens
Output:$1.75/M tokens
Winner
Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

74

Composite Score

GLM 4.7

Zhipu AI

74

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricQwen3.8 27BGLM 4.7Winner
Overall Score
74
74
Qwen3.8 27B
Rank#133#135
Qwen3.8 27B
Quality Rank#133#135
Qwen3.8 27B
Adoption Rank#133#135
Qwen3.8 27B
Parameters27B----
Context Window1000K205K
Qwen3.8 27B
Pricing$0.40/$3.00/M$0.40/$1.75/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
83
67
Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmarks
72
72
GLM 4.7
Pricing
97
98
GLM 4.7
Context window size
95
84
Qwen3.8 27B
Recency
100
88
Qwen3.8 27B
Output Capacity
85
85
Qwen3.8 27B
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
Qwen3.8 27B: 0GLM 4.7: 1
Qwen3.8 27B
GLM 4.7
Normalized 0-100%
Arena Elo
14401442
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Qwen3.8 27BStrong Performer

Scores 74/100 (rank #133), placing it in the top 54% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 4.7Strong Performer

Scores 74/100 (rank #135), placing it in the top 54% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Qwen3.8 27B when you need:

  • Processing long documents or large codebases (1000K token context)
  • Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose GLM 4.7 when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Qwen3.8 27B
Input cost$0.40/M tokens
Output cost$3.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.046
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$51.00
GLM 4.7Best Value
Input cost$0.40/M tokens
Output cost$1.75/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.029
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$32.25

GLM 4.7 offers 37% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $32.25/month with GLM 4.7 vs $51.00/month with Qwen3.8 27B - a $18.75 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Qwen3.8 27BFaster
Speed score0/100
GLM 4.7
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Qwen3.8 27B

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GLM 4.7 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Qwen3.8 27B

Long document analysis

Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Qwen3.8 27B

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($1.75/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

GLM 4.7

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (74/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Qwen3.8 27B

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Qwen3.8 27B
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B and GLM 4.7 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.10000000000000853 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Qwen3.8 27B
Recommended

by Alibaba

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by Zhipu AI

  • Choose for Cost - 37% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityQwen3.8 27BGLM 4.7
Vision (Image Input)differs
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba

$4.32
estimated monthly cost

GLM 4.7

Zhipu AI

Best Value
$2.82
estimated monthly cost

GLM 4.7 saves you $1.50/month

That's 35% cheaper than Qwen3.8 27B at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterQwen3.8 27BGLM 4.7
Context Window1M205K
Max Output Tokens131,072131,072
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedAug 14, 2026Dec 22, 2025
Last updated: 55m ago

Related comparisons

Qwen3.8 27B vs GLM 4.7 (2026) | LM Market Cap