Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 vs o3

GLM 4.7 leads o3 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.2 to 20.2, and GLM 4.7 costs 3.6x less per output token ($2.20 vs $8.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 64 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.7Z.ai
Coding
55.1
Overall
56.9
Output $/M
$2.20
39
o3OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
51.1
Output $/M
$8.00
25
vs boards won of 64 shared

GLM 4.7 or o3: which to pick

Only GLM 4.7 has a coding score, 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; o3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick o3 for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
64
GLM 4.7 only
17
o3 only
38
Like-for-like categories
8 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 55.1 from 2 benchmarks, o3 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 18.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: all code categories: GLM 4.7 1216 against o3 1020, 24.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.7 $2.20 against o3 $8.00 per million output tokens, 3.6x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 takes 205K tokens, o3 200K.

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 4.7Barso3Ties
Coding33
Intelligence11
Agentic work11
Reasoning63
Math34
Knowledge57
Web design41
General165
All shared boards3925
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index33
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured81.3%Only o3 measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured58.4%Only o3 measured
SWE-bench MultimodalNot measured36.0%Only o3 measured
LMArena WebDev1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
AA Coding Index45.3Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)82.2%83.9%o3
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)89.4%80.8%GLM 4.7
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%37.1%o3
Terminal-Bench33.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
GSO-BenchNot measured8.8%Only o3 measured
WeirdMLNot measured52.4%Only o3 measured
ALE-Bench399.5933.5o3
LMArena Text: coding14541407GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: software and IT14531415GLM 4.7
LMArena WebDev: React1420Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1447Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SciCodeNot measured9.2%Only o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
AA Intelligence Index22.220.2GLM 4.7
Epoch Capabilities Index143.6146.7o3
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1050Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1105Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1112Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1058Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom95.9%80.7%GLM 4.7
METR time horizonsNot measured65.4%Only o3 measured
GDPvalNot measured30.8%Only o3 measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured45.2%Only o3 measured
OSWorldNot measured23.0%Only o3 measured
Vending-Bench 2$2,377Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured63.0%Only o3 measured
BrowseComp-Plus64.7%65.9%o3
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index63
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
GPQA Diamond80.0%84.1%o3
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured80.4%Only o3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)85.9%82.7%GLM 4.7
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)27.4%20.1%GLM 4.7
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)83.3%81.8%GLM 4.7
ARC-AGINot measured60.8%Only o3 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured6.5%Only o3 measured
SimpleBench47.7%53.1%o3
Chess puzzles21.0%37.0%o3
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured29.0%Only o3 measured
VPCTNot measured52.0%Only o3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14431402GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: expert14241402GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14521411GLM 4.7
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1220Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1234Only o3 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured67.6%Only o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index34
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
AIME93.3%85.3%GLM 4.7
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.6%Only o3 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)88.2%91.8%o3
AA Math Index95.088.3GLM 4.7
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)95.0%88.3%GLM 4.7
OTIS Mock AIME83.3%84.4%o3
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured33.3%Only o3 measured
ProofBench6.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MATH level 5Not measured97.8%Only o3 measured
LMArena Text: math14241426o3
LMArena Text: mathematical work14111423o3
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index57
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
MMLU Pro82.7%85.6%o3
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.4%83.8%o3
CaseLaw (Vals AI)54.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.4%59.7%o3
TaxEval (Vals AI)68.8%74.6%o3
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured65.7%Only o3 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.7%96.1%o3
MedCode (Vals AI)32.8%47.3%o3
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.6%85.3%GLM 4.7
SimpleQA Verified32.2%49.4%o3
GeoBenchNot measured74.0%Only o3 measured
LMArena Text: science14571429GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14691448GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: legal and government14441428GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: business and finance14291393GLM 4.7
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured44.4%Only o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
Design Arena: websites12251036GLM 4.7
Design Arena: UI components11961017GLM 4.7
Design Arena: game dev11881034GLM 4.7
Design Arena: data viz11951200o3
Design Arena: 3D1190Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: all code categories12161020GLM 4.7
Design Arena: SVG1142Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1165Not measuredOnly 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 index165
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured41.8%Only o3 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)68.6%76.7%o3
IFBench67.9%71.4%o3
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.0%74.7%o3
DTBenchNot measured84.8%Only o3 measured
LMCANot measured39.7%Only o3 measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured88.9%Only o3 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured83.9%Only o3 measured
CL-bench15.9%17.8%o3
CL-bench Life10.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text14351410GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: instruction following14121368GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: creative writing14011359GLM 4.7
LMArena VisionNot measured1214Only o3 measured
LMArena Text: English14531417GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: non-English14171401GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Chinese14951437GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: German14261420GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Japanese14391403GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Korean13991370GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: French14321430GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Spanish14341395GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Russian14231406GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: Polish14351438o3
LMArena Text: multi-turn14461405GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: longer queries14321372GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: writing and language14111372GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14001373GLM 4.7
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1221Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1237Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1218Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1222Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1210Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1234Only o3 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1201Only o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and o3
BenchmarkGLM 4.7o3Leader
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$0.0017Fits in one request
o3$0.0060Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.7$0.037Fits in one request
o3$0.124Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.7$0.142Exceeds the context window
o3$0.480Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.7 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 and o3
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7OpenAI o3
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 22, 2025April 16, 2025
Context window205K200K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$2.00
Output $/Mtok$2.20$8.00
Coding index55.1Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved task$0.29$0.571
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 better than o3 for coding?

Only GLM 4.7 has a coding score, 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; o3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick o3 for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 or o3?

GLM 4.7 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; o3 costs $2.00 and $8.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 4.7 costs $0.29 and o3 $0.571.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 or o3?

GLM 4.7, with 205K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.7 vs o3 comparison based on?

64 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.7's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and o3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next