Grok 4.7vsGLM-5.1
Grok 4.7 | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 744B |
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. | 500k | 200k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $2.00 | $1.40 |
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. | $6.00 | $4.40 |
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. | $0.50 | $0.26 |
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. | — | $0.966StreamLake |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $3.036StreamLake |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | — | 22% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 71% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 58% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 38% | — |
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. | — | 63.5% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 68% |
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. | — | 52.3% |
EEBenchElectrical engineering — Electrical-engineering problems — the circuit and systems work an engineer would be handed. Reported in xAI's Grok 4.7 launch comparison, which does not say who publishes the test. Higher is better. | 64% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86.2% |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 19.6% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 56.7% | — |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1695 | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1657 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Sep 21 2026 | Apr 7 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Grok 4.7vsClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.1vsClaude Fable 5.1Grok 4.7vsGPT-6 AstraGLM-5.1vsGPT-6 AstraGrok 4.7vsGemini 3.8 FlashGLM-5.1vsGemini 3.8 FlashGrok 4.7vsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-5.1vsMuse Spark 1.3Grok 4.7vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGLM-5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGrok 4.7vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.1vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Grok 4.7 and GLM-5.1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GLM-5.1 is cheaper on both input and output: $1.40 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $4.40 vs $6.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. GLM-5.1 shipped 167 days before Grok 4.7, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 500k (Grok 4.7) vs 200k (GLM-5.1). Grok 4.7 is proprietary, while GLM-5.1 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Grok 4.7 and GLM-5.1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.