Side-by-side comparison
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 vs GLM 4.7 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0800
Output / 1M
$0.4000
| Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 | GLM 4.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 131,072 | 202,752 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.0800 | 0.0600 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.4000 | 0.4000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 or GLM 4.7 Flash?
GLM 4.7 Flash is cheaper than Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.01 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 or GLM 4.7 Flash?
GLM 4.7 Flash has the larger context window at 203k tokens versus 131k tokens for Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507. That means GLM 4.7 Flash can ingest about 1.5x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 and GLM 4.7 Flash?
Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 comes from Qwen; GLM 4.7 Flash comes from Z.ai. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.