Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 Flash vs GPT-5.4 Pro

GLM 4.7 Flash costs 450.0x less per output token than GPT-5.4 Pro ($0.40 vs $180.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.7 FlashZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
42.1
Output $/M
$0.40
0
GPT-5.4 ProOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$180.00
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

GLM 4.7 Flash or GPT-5.4 Pro: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 450.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $180.00 per million) and work measured by GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.

Shared results
1
GLM 4.7 Flash only
42
GPT-5.4 Pro only
9
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 4.7 Flash not benchmarked, GPT-5.4 Pro not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 34.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run): GLM 4.7 Flash 60.5% against GPT-5.4 Pro 94.6%, 34.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 against GPT-5.4 Pro $180.00 per million output tokens, 450.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 Flash takes 200K tokens, GPT-5.4 Pro 1.05M.

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 4.7 FlashBarsGPT-5.4 ProTies
Reasoning01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
WeirdMLNot measured57.4%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
LMArena Text: coding1382Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1389Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.9Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured159.6Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom98.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)60.5%94.6%GPT-5.4 Pro
ARC-AGINot measured94.5%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured83.3%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
SimpleBenchNot measured74.1%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured59.0%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1356Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: expert1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1369Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
OTIS Mock AIME58.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured82.5%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured58.5%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
LMArena Text: math1355Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1369Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured46.3%Only GPT-5.4 Pro measured
LMArena Text: science1358Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1357Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1343Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
Design Arena: websites1194Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI components1208Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: game dev1135Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: data viz1123Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3D1121Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categories1178Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVG1038Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
IFBench60.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)41.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text1351Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1327Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1296Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: English1373Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-English1330Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1403Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: German1336Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Korean1283Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French1332Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian1333Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Polish1291Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1342Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1345Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1320Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1304Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashGPT-5.4 ProLeader
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 4.7 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro$0.120Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0045Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Pro$2.04Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.7 Flash$0.017Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.4 Pro$7.80Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash 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 4.7 Flash and GPT-5.4 Pro
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7 FlashOpenAI GPT-5.4 Pro
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJanuary 19, 2026March 5, 2026
Context window200K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.0653$30.00
Output $/Mtok$0.40$180.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 Flash better than GPT-5.4 Pro for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 450.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $180.00 per million) and work measured by GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 Flash or GPT-5.4 Pro?

GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 Pro costs $30.00 and $180.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 Flash or GPT-5.4 Pro?

GPT-5.4 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 Flash vs GPT-5.4 Pro comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.7 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.4 Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next