Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.7 vs Hy4

Hy4 leads GLM 4.7 on coding, 65.2 to 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Hy4 costs 1.8x less per output token ($1.2505 vs $2.20 per million). Updated November 5, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

GLM 4.7Z.ai
Coding
55.1
Overall
62.3
Output $/M
$2.20
Hy4Tencent
Coding
65.2
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.2505
vs $2.20 vs $1.2505 per 1M output tokens. Hy4 is 1.8x cheaper.

GLM 4.7 or Hy4: which to pick

GLM 4.7 scores 55.1 and Hy4 65.2 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking.

Pick Hy4 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($1.2505 vs $2.20 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.7 has results on LMArena WebDev, AA Coding Index and LiveCodeBench (Vals AI); Hy4 on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI). Compare them on price and context instead.

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, Hy4 65.2 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
GLM 4.7 $2.20 against Hy4 $1.2505 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.7 takes 205K tokens, Hy4 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
LMArena WebDev1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
AA Coding Index45.3Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)82.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured39.4%Only Hy4 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured81.0%Only Hy4 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)89.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench33.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
ALE-Bench399.5Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: coding1454Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1453Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1420Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1446Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.033.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
Epoch Capabilities Index143.2Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1045Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1104Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1109Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1058Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured34.4%Only Hy4 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured41.4%Only Hy4 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured12.5%Only Hy4 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom95.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Vending-Bench 2$2,377Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
BrowseComp-Plus64.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MCP Atlas58.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
GPQA Diamond80.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)85.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)27.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleBench47.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Chess puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1443Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: expert1424Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1452Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)88.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)95.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
OTIS Mock AIME83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
ProofBench6.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: math1424Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1411Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
MMLU Pro82.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)54.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)68.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)32.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleQA Verified32.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: science1458Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1469Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1444Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
Design Arena: websites1224Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: UI components1194Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: game dev1188Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: data viz1196Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: 3D1187Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1215Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: SVG1139Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1161Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23 boards measured
General benchmarks for GLM 4.7 and Hy4
BenchmarkGLM 4.7Hy4Leader
Vals IndexNot measured59.4%Only Hy4 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)68.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
IFBench67.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CL-bench15.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
CL-bench Life10.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1401Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: English1453Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1417Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1495Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: German1426Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1439Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1399Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: French1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1434Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1423Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1435Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1446Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1432Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1411Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1401Not measuredOnly GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 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
Hy4$0.0010Fits in one request

Hy4 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.7$0.037Fits in one request
Hy4$0.025Fits in one request

Hy4 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.7$0.142Exceeds the context window
Hy4$0.096Fits in one request

Hy4 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 Hy4
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.7Tencent Hy4
MakerZ.aiTencent
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 22, 2025November 4, 2026
Context window205K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.417
Output $/Mtok$2.20$1.2505
Coding index55.165.2
Independent measurements behind it22
Cost per solved task$0.29Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.7 better than Hy4 for coding?

GLM 4.7 scores 55.1 and Hy4 65.2 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking. Pick Hy4 for output tokens 1.8x cheaper ($1.2505 vs $2.20 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 or Hy4?

GLM 4.7 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Hy4 costs $0.417 and $1.2505. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 4.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.7 or Hy4?

Hy4, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

Has any benchmark tested both GLM 4.7 and Hy4?

No benchmark has tested both yet. GLM 4.7 has results on LMArena WebDev, AA Coding Index and LiveCodeBench (Vals AI); Hy4 on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of November 5, 2026.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/glm-4-7-vs-tencent-hy4" title="GLM 4.7 vs Hy4, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/glm-4-7-vs-tencent-hy4">LLMBenchmark.ai, GLM 4.7 vs Hy4</a></p>