Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

40.9

Rank #133 Confirmed

Grok 4.7 xAI

46.6

Rank #56 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and Grok 4.7 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Grok 4.7 leads 55.0 to 40.2.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
  • Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 128K.
  • GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and Grok 4.7 specifications
GLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)xAI
Noometry Index40.946.6
Released2025-12-082026-09-21
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K500K
Max output33K500K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$2
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$6
Results tracked1221

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128), Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Coding13901423
CursorBench—46.3%
LMArena WebDev—1636
FrontierSWE—29.5%
SciCode—57.4%

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117), Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts13681409
NYT Connections (extended)—76.8%
CritPt—17.7%

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
ProofBench—34%
LMArena Math—1393

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148), Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Expert13721413

Multimodal GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83), Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Vision1164—
Furniture Assembly—20.8%

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135), Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Non-English13591392
LMArena Chinese14261476
LMArena Russian13411396

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145), Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Instruction Following13511406

Long Context Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138), Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Longer Query13581416

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132), Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VGrok 4.7
LMArena Text13771397
LMArena Creative Writing13471391
LMArena Multi-Turn13591389
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—2007

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.6V costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or Grok 4.7?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.

Is GLM-4.6V or Grok 4.7 better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Grok 4.7 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.7 has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper