# GLM-4.7 vs GPT-5.4

> GPT-5.4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.5 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 5.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-vs-gpt-5-4
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 35

## Summary

- They share 35 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.4 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.4 leads 61.7 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 6% for GLM-4.7 and 56% for GPT-5.4.
- GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $15 for GPT-5.4.
- GPT-5.4 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
- GLM-4.7 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 59.5 |
| Rank | 117 | 14 |
| Context | 205K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | $15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)
- GPT-5.4: 52.8 (#28)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | 1465 |
| SciCode | 45.1% | 56.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1497 |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | 1,607 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.9% |
| DeepSWE | — | 51.8% |
| GSO | — | 31.4% |
| WeirdML | — | 77.7% |
| MirrorCode | — | 15.6% |
| AlgoTune | — | 1.85 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)
- GPT-5.4: 46.5 (#12)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | 81.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | 6,144 |
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.4% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 39.4% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 35.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 19% |
| GBAEval | — | 45.1% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1197 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 74.3% |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)
- GPT-5.4: 61.7 (#17)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.7% | 23.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | 44% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1485 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.53 | 156.92 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 74% |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 91.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 93.7% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 16% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 80% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 25.4% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 37% |
| DTBench | — | 94.4% |
| LMCA | — | 52% |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.5 |

## Math

- GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)
- GPT-5.4: 73.3 (#14)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | 97.8% |
| ProofBench | 6% | 56% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | 47.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | 27.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 78.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 49% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 83.1% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)
- GPT-5.4: 65.3 (#13)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 93.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | 45.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | 7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | 1507 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 36.2% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.7: —
- GPT-5.4: 43.8 (#19)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1302 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 27.1% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 37.5% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1471 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)
- GPT-5.4: 56.4 (#22)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1465 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1520 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1493 |
| LMArena German | 1426 | 1472 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | 1484 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1480 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1453 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)
- GPT-5.4: 77.3 (#25)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | 1469 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)
- GPT-5.4: 50.3 (#8)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 15.9% | 27.9% |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | 21.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | 1474 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)
- GPT-5.4: 72.1 (#18)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1469 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1439 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | 1840 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1272 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7 better than GPT-5.4?

GPT-5.4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.5 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 5.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or GPT-5.4?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 lists at $2.50 and $15.

### Is GLM-4.7 or GPT-5.4 better for coding?

GPT-5.4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 43.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.4 does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and GPT-5.4 share?

35 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 has 68.