LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5 vs Grok 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.

GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
64.2
Overall
12.8
Output $/M
$2.20
22
Grok 4.7xAI
Coding
75.0
Overall
46.4
Output $/M
$6.00
16
vs boards won of 38 shared

Decision reading

Pick Grok 4.7 for coding: it scores 75.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 64.2 for GLM 4.5.

Pick GLM 4.5 when output tokens cost 2.7x less, or when what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Shared results
38
GLM 4.5 only
22
Grok 4.7 only
61
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
GLM 4.5 64.2 from 1 benchmark, Grok 4.7 75.0 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Intelligence, 33.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: GLM 4.5 12.8 against Grok 4.7 46.4, 33.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.5 $2.20 against Grok 4.7 $6.00 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5 takes 131K tokens, Grok 4.7 500K.

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
CategoryGLM 4.5BarsGrok 4.7Ties
Coding20
Intelligence01
Reasoning22
Math11
Knowledge41
Web design06
General135
All shared boards2216
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
SWE-bench Verified64.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveBench codingNot measured84.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1637Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)67.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured28.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured86.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured57.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured73.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured42.9%Only Grok 4.7 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured69.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)73.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
SciCodeNot measured57.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
FrontierCodeNot measured47.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
FrontierSWENot measured29.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
WeirdML40.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-Bench344.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding14341432GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: software and IT14401421GLM 4.5
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1663Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1627Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1586Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
AA Intelligence Index12.846.4Grok 4.7
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured154.4Only Grok 4.7 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
LiveBench researchNot measured86.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench browserNot measured60.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured50.1%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured3.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured52.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured34.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured47.1%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured18.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured67.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured69.3%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured10.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured34.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom43.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured54.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$10,537Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
GPQA Diamond72.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured82.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured25.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%43.1%Grok 4.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured92.7%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ARC-AGINot measured90.2%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured61.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured41.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured29.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14291415GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: expert14331439Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14291427GLM 4.5
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1254Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1309Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
AIME86.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)94.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AA Math Index73.7Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured98.1%Only Grok 4.7 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured53.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured17.1%Only Grok 4.7 measured
ProofBenchNot measured26.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: math14271414GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: mathematical work14301435Grok 4.7
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
MMLU Pro81.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)75.6%84.4%Grok 4.7
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)90.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured56.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: science14441419GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14551395GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: legal and government14381423GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: business and finance14201389GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
Design Arena: websites11701255Grok 4.7
Design Arena: UI components11441271Grok 4.7
Design Arena: game dev11451314Grok 4.7
Design Arena: data viz11591227Grok 4.7
Design Arena: 3D11701269Grok 4.7
Design Arena: all code categories11651271Grok 4.7
Design Arena: SVG1096Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveBench designNot measured78.0%Only Grok 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 index135
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 4.7Leader
Vals IndexNot measured58.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured76.9%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured65.6%Only Grok 4.7 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured40.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured89.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
IFBench44.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%80.0%Grok 4.7
DTBenchNot measured96.0%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMCANot measured49.4%Only Grok 4.7 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)73.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured20.8%Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text14301399GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: instruction following14041406Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: creative writing13951381GLM 4.5
LMArena VisionNot measured1231Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: English14371411GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: non-English14171386GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Chinese14651449GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: German14071366GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Japanese14151359GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Korean13801383Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: French14181431Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: Spanish14541406GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Russian14131399GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Polish14221420GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: multi-turn14151394GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: longer queries14121416Grok 4.7
LMArena Text: writing and language14031394GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14041376GLM 4.5
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1229Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1250Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1241Only Grok 4.7 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1217Only Grok 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Grok 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

GLM 4.5$0.0017Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.0050Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request
Grok 4.7$0.118Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window
Grok 4.7$0.460Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 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 GLM 4.5 and Grok 4.7
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5SpaceXAI Grok 4.7
MakerZ.aixAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 25, 2025September 21, 2026
Context window131K500K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$2.00
Output $/Mtok$2.20$6.00
Coding index64.275.0
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5 better than Grok 4.7 for coding?

Pick Grok 4.7 for coding: it scores 75.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 64.2 for GLM 4.5. Pick GLM 4.5 when output tokens cost 2.7x less, or when what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5 or Grok 4.7?

GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7, with 500K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5 vs Grok 4.7 comparison based on?

38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.5's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Grok 4.7's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next