← All Comparisons

GLM-4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.6

A detailed comparison of GLM-4.7 (Zhipu AI) and Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) across pricing, performance, and features.

Pricing Comparison

MetricGLM-4.7Claude Opus 4.6Difference
Input / 1M tokens$0.60$5.00+733%
Output / 1M tokens$2.20$25.00+1036%
Context window200K200K
Max output128K32K

Benchmark Comparison

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Claude Opus 4.6
MMLU-Pro84.3%89.5%
HumanEval95%
GPQA85.7%75.5%

Capabilities

CapabilityGLM-4.7Claude Opus 4.6
code
reasoning
text
tool-use
vision

GLM-4.7 Strengths

  • Excellent value — strong benchmarks at $0.60/$2.20
  • Open-weight (MIT license)
  • Top scores on AIME 25 and BrowseComp

GLM-4.7 Weaknesses

  • No tool-use support yet
  • 358B parameters — still heavy for self-hosting
  • Smaller ecosystem than OpenAI/Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.6 Strengths

  • Best-in-class agentic tool use and coding
  • 1M context available in beta (Tier 4)
  • Strong at following complex multi-step instructions

Claude Opus 4.6 Weaknesses

  • Premium pricing ($10/$37.50 at 1M context)
  • 1M context beta is Tier 4 only

Quick Verdict

Best value: GLM-4.7 is the more affordable option at $0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens.

Higher benchmarks: Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on average across available benchmarks (86.7% avg).

Choose GLM-4.7 if cost matters most. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you need the best possible quality for complex tasks.

More Comparisons