Compare AI models
| 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. | — | 320B |
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 | 1M |
| 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 | — |
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 | — |
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 | — |
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. | $2.00xAI | $0.0317Relace |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $6.00xAI | $0.25DeepInfra |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 63.4% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 1621 | 1378 |
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 78% | — |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | 46.3% | — |
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 29% | — |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | 46% | — |
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. | 94% | — |
Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase coding — Supabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 89.9% | — |
Supabase Evals · no skillsSupabase coding — The same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 78.3% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 56.3% |
CADGenBenchCAD generation — Can the AI turn a written design brief into a real CAD model? What it produces has to run as a program and come out the right shape. Higher is better. | 44.4% | — |
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 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 84.3% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 78.4% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 80.3% | — |
CVE-BenchCybersecurity — Can the AI exploit real, publicly known security holes in web applications, in a sandbox built to resemble a live service? A measure of raw capability: it is run without the safeguards a deployed model carries. Higher is better. | 37.7% | — |
CathedralBenchCybersecurity — An outside red team's test: chaining several exploits together to get through a hardened system, scored on the hardest tasks only and run without safeguards, to show what the underlying model can do. Higher is better. | 29% | — |
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. | — | 55.3% |
LatchBio Capabilities v1.0Biology — Can the AI do a working biologist's analysis — opening real experimental files and reaching a defensible conclusion across genomics, drug discovery and pathogen surveillance? Averaged over eleven separate tests. Higher is better. | 44.5% | — |
EEBenchElectrical engineering — Can the AI design electronics? It is asked for circuits and chip layouts, and the designs are checked for whether they would physically work — not whether the answer reads well. Higher is better. | 66% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 26.3% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 48.8% |
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 | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1773 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1657 | — |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 89.4% |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | — | 78% |
OfficeQA ProDocument Q&A — Questions about office documents, where answering depends on reading the page as a document — layout, tables and figures included — rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 62.4% |
MVBenchVideo understanding — Video questions that cannot be answered from any single frame: the AI has to follow what changes over time — the order things happen in, what moved where. Higher is better. | — | 77.8% |
MMVUVideo reasoning — Expert-level video questions drawn from specific disciplines, where answering means applying subject knowledge to what is happening on screen rather than just describing it. Higher is better. | — | 80.5% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Sep 21 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Grok 4.7vsClaude Sonnet 5.5GLM-5.3-FlashvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Grok 4.7vsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-5.3-FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolGrok 4.7vsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-5.3-FlashvsGemini 4 ArgonGrok 4.7vsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-5.3-FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Grok 4.7vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGLM-5.3-FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGrok 4.7vsMistral Large 4GLM-5.3-FlashvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Grok 4.7 leads GLM-5.3-Flash on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, threejseval). Only Grok 4.7 has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GLM-5.3-Flash. GLM-5.3-Flash shipped 26 days before Grok 4.7, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 500k (Grok 4.7) vs 1M (GLM-5.3-Flash). Grok 4.7 is closed, while GLM-5.3-Flash is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Grok 4.7 leads at 71% vs GLM-5.3-Flash at 63.4%. On threejseval, Grok 4.7 leads at 1621 vs GLM-5.3-Flash at 1378.