Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.60 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $2.20 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.11 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.54Novita |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.98Novita |
| Benchmarks | ||
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 35% | 42.8% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 50% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 73.8% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 84.9% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 41% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 52% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 24.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 85.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Apr 17 2026 | Dec 22 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Grok 4.3 BetavsClaude Sonnet 5.5GLM-4.7vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.3 BetavsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-4.7vsGPT-6.1 SolGrok 4.3 BetavsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-4.7vsGemini 4 ArgonGrok 4.3 BetavsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-4.7vsMuse Spark 1.3Grok 4.3 BetavsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGLM-4.7vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGrok 4.3 BetavsMistral Large 4GLM-4.7vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GLM-4.7 leads Grok 4.3 Beta on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Humanity's Last Exam). Only GLM-4.7 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Grok 4.3 Beta. GLM-4.7 shipped 116 days before Grok 4.3 Beta, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Grok 4.3 Beta is closed, while GLM-4.7 is open weight.
On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, GLM-4.7 leads at 42.8% vs Grok 4.3 Beta at 35%.