The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) leads the LLM Stats Score 35.0 to 23.2. GLM-4.7-Flash is 2.6x cheaper per token.

Zhipu AI · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) leads the overall LLM Stats Score 35.0 to 23.2, ranking #108 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, GLM-4.7-Flash is roughly 2.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose GLM-4.7-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 2.6x cheaper per token

Choose Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

  • overall performance matters — it scores 35.0 and ranks #108 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GLM-4.7-Flash
Zhipu AI
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
23.2
#199
35.0
#108
Reasoning
23.2
#187
36.2
#94
Coding
3.8
#235
21.0
#108
Agents
4.3
#177
16.5
#99
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 4
4 of 4
Input price
$0.07 / M
$0.20 / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
$1.00 / M
Context window
128,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
GLM-4.7-Flash
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)
Math
20.8#164
28.1#101
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for GLM-4.7-Flash · 19 for Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

4 shared

GLM-4.7-Flash outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) is better at 4 benchmarks (BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified).

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-4.7-Flash costs less

For input processing, GLM-4.7-Flash ($0.07/1M tokens) is 2.9x cheaper than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, GLM-4.7-Flash ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.5x cheaper than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) ($1.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) is more expensive than GLM-4.7-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerUnknown Organization
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$1.00
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

90.0B diff

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) has 90.0B more parameters than GLM-4.7-Flash, making it 300.0% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash
30.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)
120.0Bparameters
30.0B
GLM-4.7-Flash
120.0B
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to GLM-4.7-Flash's 128,000 tokens. Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while GLM-4.7-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash
Input128,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) supports multimodal inputs, whereas GLM-4.7-Flash does not.

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GLM-4.7-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GLM-4.7-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) uses OpenMDW License v1.1.

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

GLM-4.7-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

OpenMDW License v1.1

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GLM-4.7-Flash was released on 2026-01-19, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) was released on 2026-10-15.

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) is 9 months newer than GLM-4.7-Flash.

GLM-4.7-Flash

Jan 19, 2026

9 months ago

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

Oct 15, 2026

4 days ago

8mo newer

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

Provider Availability

GLM-4.7-Flash is available from ZAI. Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) is available from DeepInfra.

GLM-4.7-Flash

z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GLM-4.7-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-4.7-Flash
✓ Preferred
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B).

Which is better, GLM-4.7-Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)?

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) leads the LLM Stats Score 35.0 to 23.2. GLM-4.7-Flash is made by Zhipu AI and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does GLM-4.7-Flash compare to Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) in benchmarks?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores AIME 2025: 91.6%, Tau-bench: 79.5%, GPQA: 75.2%, SWE-Bench Verified: 59.2%, BrowseComp: 42.8%. Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) scores GPQA: 89.5%, LiveCodeBench v6: 88.2%, CharXiv-R: 80.8%, MathVision: 78.2%, BrowseComp: 78.0%.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash cheaper than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)?

GLM-4.7-Flash is 2.9x cheaper for input tokens. GLM-4.7-Flash costs $0.07/M input and $0.40/M output via z. Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) costs $0.20/M input and $1.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for GLM-4.7-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)?

GLM-4.7-Flash supports 128K tokens and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between GLM-4.7-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (23.2 vs 35.0), context window (128K vs 262K), input pricing ($0.07 vs $0.20/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs OpenMDW License v1.1). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GLM-4.7-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B)?

GLM-4.7-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (120B A12B) is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons