Model Comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber vs GLM-4.7-FlashWhich is better in 2026?

Comparing Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-4.7-Flash across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber vs GLM-4.7-Flash — which is better?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber (by Google) and GLM-4.7-Flash (by Zhipu AI) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber if…

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Choose GLM-4.7-Flash if…

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-4.7-Flashdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only GLM-4.7-Flash specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only GLM-4.7-Flash specifies output context (16,384 tokens).

Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash
Input128,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Tue Jul 21 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber is licensed under a proprietary license, while GLM-4.7-Flash uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber

Proprietary

Closed source

GLM-4.7-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber was released on 2026-07-21, while GLM-4.7-Flash was released on 2026-01-19.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber is 6 months newer than GLM-4.7-Flash.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber

Jul 21, 2026

0 days ago

6mo newer
GLM-4.7-Flash

Jan 19, 2026

6 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google

No standout differentiators in the data we have for this pair.

Zhipu AI
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-4.7-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber
✓ Preferred
GLM-4.7-Flash
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber vs GLM-4.7-Flash.

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber or GLM-4.7-Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber (Google) and GLM-4.7-Flash (Zhipu AI) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber compare to GLM-4.7-Flash in benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber scores CyberGym: 83.2%. GLM-4.7-Flash scores AIME 2025: 91.6%, Tau-bench: 79.5%, GPQA: 75.2%, SWE-Bench Verified: 59.2%, BrowseComp: 42.8%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-4.7-Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber supports an unknown number of tokens and GLM-4.7-Flash supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-4.7-Flash?

Key differences include licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and GLM-4.7-Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber is developed by Google and GLM-4.7-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI.

Related comparisons