# GLM-4.7 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

> GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.4 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 8.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-vs-gpt-5-6-sol
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 31

## Summary

- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.6 Sol in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 74.7 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 6% for GLM-4.7 and 83% for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol 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-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.7 | 64.4 |
| Rank | 117 | 6 |
| Context | 205K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | $4 |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | $20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 61.1 (#7)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | 1619 |
| SciCode | 45.1% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1493 |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | 2,177 |
| DeepSWE | — | 72.7% |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.5% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.7% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 32.2% |
| WeirdML | — | 89.4% |
| MirrorCode | — | 20% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.2 (#7)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | 9,619 |
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 51.4% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 27.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 46.9% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 36.2% |
| BALROG | — | 60% |
| GBAEval | — | 52.6% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1257 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.7 (#6)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | 71.7% |
| CritPt | 1.7% | 32.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | 64% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1481 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.53 | 161.99 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 92.5% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 93.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 97.5% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 37.1% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 44.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 58% |
| DTBench | — | 96% |
| LMCA | — | 59.2% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 93.1% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |

## Math

- GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.5 (#7)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | 100% |
| ProofBench | 6% | 83% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1472 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 89.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 82.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | — | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#16)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 93.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | 69.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | 12.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | 1517 |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.7: —
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.9 (#8)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1281 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.6% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1483 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.4 (#32)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1450 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1523 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1475 |
| LMArena German | 1426 | 1476 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | 1475 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1434 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1449 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.8 (#16)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | 1480 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | 1479 |
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)
- GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.5 (#12)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1456 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1450 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | 1972 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1250 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7 better than GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.4 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7 costs 8.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.

### Is GLM-4.7 or GPT-5.6 Sol better for coding?

GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 61.1 versus 43.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and GPT-5.6 Sol share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.6 Sol has 64.