Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 Flash vs Muse Wonder

GLM 4.7 Flash costs 50.0x less per output token than Muse Wonder ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 31 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.7 FlashZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
42.1
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
31
vs boards won of 31 shared

GLM 4.7 Flash or Muse Wonder: which to pick

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 4.7 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 50.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million).

Shared results
31
GLM 4.7 Flash only
12
Muse Wonder only
29
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 29.0 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): GLM 4.7 Flash 7.6% against Muse Wonder 50.1%, 42.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 50.0x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 Flash takes 200K tokens, Muse Wonder 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 FlashBarsMuse WonderTies
Coding02
Reasoning04
Math02
Knowledge04
Web design06
General013
All shared boards031
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1652Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured83.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured62.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured66.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)Not measured26.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.4%Only Muse Wonder measured
SciCodeNot measured60.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding13821522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT13891515Muse Wonder
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1694Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
AA Intelligence Index14.9Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured161.8Only Muse Wonder measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1227Only Muse Wonder measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured36.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured50.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured23.8%Only Muse Wonder measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured67.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured22.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured39.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)Not measured7.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
τ²-Bench Telecom98.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,432Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured27.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)7.6%50.1%Muse Wonder
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)60.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13561506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert13571513Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13691506Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
OTIS Mock AIME58.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
ProofBenchNot measured84.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: math13551486Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work13691514Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
LMArena Text: science13581506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13431512Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government13571505Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance13431483Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: websites11941362Muse Wonder
Design Arena: UI components12081374Muse Wonder
Design Arena: game dev11351377Muse Wonder
Design Arena: data viz11231321Muse Wonder
Design Arena: 3D11211426Muse Wonder
Design Arena: all code categories11781371Muse Wonder
Design Arena: SVG1038Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index013
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
Vals IndexNot measured64.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
IFBench60.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)41.7%80.7%Muse Wonder
DTBenchNot measured95.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMCANot measured56.8%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text13511502Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following13271491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing12961491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: English13731507Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English13301492Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese14031537Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: German1336Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Korean1283Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French13321523Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Spanish1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian13331522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Polish1291Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13421510Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries13451493Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language13201496Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13041482Muse Wonder
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 GLM 4.7 Flash and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkGLM 4.7 FlashMuse WonderLeader
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
Muse Wonder$0.014Fits 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
Muse Wonder$0.260Fits 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
Muse Wonder$1.00Fits 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 Muse Wonder
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7 FlashMeta Muse Wonder
MakerZ.aiMeta
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJanuary 19, 2026October 12, 2026
Context window200K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.0653$4.00
Output $/Mtok$0.40$20.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked71.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 Flash better than Muse Wonder for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 4.7 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GLM 4.7 Flash for output tokens 50.0x cheaper ($0.40 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 Flash or Muse Wonder?

GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 Flash or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 Flash vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?

31 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 Muse Wonder's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next