← All Comparisons

GLM-4.7 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

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

Pricing Comparison

MetricGLM-4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Difference
Input / 1M tokens$0.60$3.00+400%
Output / 1M tokens$2.20$15.00+582%
Context window200K200K
Max output128K16K

Benchmark Comparison

BenchmarkGLM-4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6
MMLU-Pro84.3%86%
HumanEval94%
GPQA85.7%70%

Capabilities

CapabilityGLM-4.7Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.6 Strengths

  • Opus 4.5 quality at 1/5th the cost
  • Best value for production workloads
  • 1M context in beta

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Weaknesses

  • Long context pricing doubles above 200K
  • Slightly below Opus 4.6 on hardest tasks

Quick Verdict

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

Higher benchmarks: GLM-4.7 scores higher on average across available benchmarks (85.0% avg).

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

More Comparisons