Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Micro 1.0 vs GLM 4.7

Updated October 21, 2026. 38 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Nova Micro 1.0 Replace GLM 4.7
Nova Micro 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
5.9
Output $/M
$0.14
0
GLM 4.7Z.ai
Coding
55.1
Overall
22.2
Output $/M
$2.20
38
vs boards won of 38 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 4.7 has a coding score, 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Micro 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Nova Micro 1.0 has the edge where output tokens cost 15.7x less.

Model ANova Micro 1.0AmazonNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.7Z.ai55.1/1002 independent benchmarks$0.29 per solved task
Shared results
38
Nova Micro 1.0 only
1
GLM 4.7 only
42
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Micro 1.0 not benchmarked, GLM 4.7 55.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 81.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Math Index: Nova Micro 1.0 6.0 against GLM 4.7 95.0, 89.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Micro 1.0 $0.14 against GLM 4.7 $2.20 per million output tokens, 15.7x apart.
Context window
Nova Micro 1.0 takes 128K tokens, GLM 4.7 205K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Micro 1.0BarsGLM 4.7Ties
Coding04
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math04
Knowledge05
General018
All shared boards038
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1435Only GLM 4.7 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured45.3Only GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.2%Only GLM 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured69.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)14.0%89.4%GLM 4.7
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)1.5%31.8%GLM 4.7
Terminal-BenchNot measured33.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured399.5Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding12181454GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: software and IT12151453GLM 4.7
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1420Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1447Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index5.922.2GLM 4.7
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured143.6Only GLM 4.7 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1050Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1105Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1119Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1058Only GLM 4.7 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom14.0%95.9%GLM 4.7
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$2,377Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured80.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)35.8%85.9%GLM 4.7
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.6%27.4%GLM 4.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured83.3%Only GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured47.7%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured21.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11911443GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: expert11831424GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12031452GLM 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
AIMENot measured93.3%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured88.2%Only GLM 4.7 measured
AA Math Index6.095.0GLM 4.7
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)6.0%95.0%GLM 4.7
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured83.3%Only GLM 4.7 measured
ProofBenchNot measured6.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: math12061424GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: mathematical work12121411GLM 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
MMLU ProNot measured82.7%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured54.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured68.8%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured93.7%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured32.8%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)53.1%85.6%GLM 4.7
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured32.2%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MMLU70.8%Not measuredOnly Nova Micro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science12101457GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12071469GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: legal and government12211444GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: business and finance11821429GLM 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1226Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1199Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1188Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1195Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1191Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1217Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1143Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1165Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index018
General benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured68.6%Only GLM 4.7 measured
IFBench29.4%67.9%GLM 4.7
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)13.0%71.0%GLM 4.7
CL-benchNot measured15.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CL-bench LifeNot measured10.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text12081435GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: instruction following11741412GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: creative writing11721401GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: English12241453GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: non-English11861417GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Chinese12091495GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: German11921426GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Japanese11541439GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Korean11501399GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: French12381432GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Spanish12251434GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Russian11851423GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1435Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn11781446GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: longer queries12051432GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: writing and language11921411GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: entertainment and media11631400GLM 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkNova Micro 1.0GLM 4.7Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Micro 1.0$0.0001Fits in one request
GLM 4.7$0.0017Fits in one request

Nova Micro 1.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Micro 1.0$0.0022Fits in one request
GLM 4.7$0.037Fits in one request

Nova Micro 1.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Micro 1.0$0.0084Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.7$0.142Exceeds the context window

Nova Micro 1.0 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Micro 1.0 and GLM 4.7
SpecificationAmazon Nova Micro 1.0Z.ai GLM 4.7
MakerAmazonZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024December 22, 2025
Context window128K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.035$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.14$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked55.1
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.29
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Micro 1.0 better than GLM 4.7 for coding?

Only GLM 4.7 has a coding score, 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Micro 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Nova Micro 1.0 has the edge where output tokens cost 15.7x less.

Which is cheaper, Nova Micro 1.0 or GLM 4.7?

Nova Micro 1.0 costs $0.035 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; GLM 4.7 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 4.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Micro 1.0 or GLM 4.7?

GLM 4.7, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Micro 1.0 vs GLM 4.7 comparison based on?

38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Micro 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.7's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next