GLM-4.7-FlashX vs GLM-4.7-Flash
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
GLM-4.7-FlashX by Zhipu AI and GLM-4.7-Flash by Zhipu AI represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, GLM-4.7-Flash holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, GLM-4.7-Flash is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, both models provide an identical memory horizon with 200K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, GLM-4.7-Flash leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
Ganti & Bandingkan Model Apa Saja
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
GLM-4.7-FlashX
Model Penalaran MendalamGLM-4.7-FlashX dari Zhipu AI adalah model AI canggih dengan jendela konteks 200K token serta harga API $0.02/1M token input dan $0.04/1M token output untuk pemrograman, penalaran, dan otomasi bisnis.
$0.02 / 1M
$0.04 / 1M
200K tokens
N/A
GLM-4.7-Flash
Model Penalaran MendalamGLM-4.7-Flash dari Zhipu AI adalah model AI canggih dengan jendela konteks 200K token serta harga API $0.015/1M token input dan $0.03/1M token output untuk pemrograman, penalaran, dan otomasi bisnis.
$0.01 / 1M
$0.03 / 1M
200K tokens
N/A
Perbedaan Utama Sekilas
- GLM-4.7-Flash is 1.3x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- GLM-4.7-Flash is faster at 160 tok/s vs 150 tok/s.
| Feature | GLM-4.7-FlashX | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 76 | 74 |
Provider | Zhipu AI | Zhipu AI |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.02 / 1M | $0.01 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.04 / 1M | $0.03 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.01 / 1M | $0.01 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 8K | 8K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 150 tok/s | 160 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | N/A | N/A |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Siapa Unggul di Mana?
At-a-glance decision frameworkEvaluations ongoing
Skor Benchmark Terverifikasi
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latensi & Waktu Respons
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Simulator Biaya Token Interaktif
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
GLM-4.7-FlashX · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Arsitektur Enhanced Latency-Optimized Transformer mutakhir dari Zhipu AI dengan dukungan konteks 200K token
- Efisiensi biaya API yang kompetitif ($0.02/1M input, $0.04/1M output) dan respons cepat
- Performa andal dalam pembuatan kode, analisis logika, serta pemahaman multibahasa
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Penggunaan konteks berukuran penuh memerlukan pengelolaan anggaran token yang cermat
- Membutuhkan perancangan prompt yang tepat untuk kasus penggunaan industri spesifik
GLM-4.7-Flash · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Arsitektur Optimized High-Speed Lightweight Transformer mutakhir dari Zhipu AI dengan dukungan konteks 200K token
- Efisiensi biaya API yang kompetitif ($0.015/1M input, $0.03/1M output) dan respons cepat
- Performa andal dalam pembuatan kode, analisis logika, serta pemahaman multibahasa
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Penggunaan konteks berukuran penuh memerlukan pengelolaan anggaran token yang cermat
- Membutuhkan perancangan prompt yang tepat untuk kasus penggunaan industri spesifik
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | GLM-4.7-FlashX | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.01 | $0.01 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 13K | 12K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 1K | 0K |
Spesifikasi Teknis
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | GLM-4.7-FlashX | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | glm-4-7-flashx | glm-4-7-flash |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2026-01 | 2026-01 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | November 2025 | November 2025 |
| Architecture | Enhanced Latency-Optimized Transformer | Optimized High-Speed Lightweight Transformer |
| Parameters | Confidential | Confidential |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Flat rate ($0.02/1M in) across full 200K window | Flat rate ($0.015/1M in) across full 200K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Cached input at $0.003/1M tokens | Cached input at $0.002/1M tokens |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 43 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 151 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 43 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 151 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text | text |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
GLM-4.7-FlashX vs GLM-4.7-Flash: Jawaban Cepat (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, GLM-4.7-FlashX or GLM-4.7-Flash?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is more intelligent. It scores 76 compared with 74 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
GLM-4.7-Flash is faster, generating 160 tokens per second compared with 150 tokens per second.
Which model has lower latency?
GLM-4.7-Flash has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.24s compared with 0.26s.
Kesimpulan
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose GLM-4.7-FlashX if your priority is Mission-critical automated routing, backend agent functions, and high-frequency API bridges. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose GLM-4.7-Flash if your workflow prioritizes High-concurrency chat routing, real-time customer engagement, and fast content generation. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
Pertanyaan Umum (FAQ)
How does GLM-4.7-FlashX compare to GLM-4.7-Flash in API token pricing and cost per token?+
GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $0.02 per 1M input tokens and $0.04 per 1M output tokens, whereas GLM-4.7-Flash costs $0.01 input and $0.03 output. Overall, GLM-4.7-Flash is the more cost-effective model for high-volume API pipelines. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: GLM-4.7-FlashX or GLM-4.7-Flash?+
Both GLM-4.7-FlashX and GLM-4.7-Flash offer an identical context window of 200K tokens (~150k words). Both architectures provide equal capacity for large document ingestion, multi-file codebases, and extended multi-turn conversation histories.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: GLM-4.7-FlashX or GLM-4.7-Flash?+
GLM-4.7-FlashX scores at the frontier of coding benchmarks, while GLM-4.7-Flash scores competitively for software generation. For complex autonomous debugging and agentic engineering, GLM-4.7-FlashX provides robust code generation and tool calling.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between GLM-4.7-FlashX and GLM-4.7-Flash?+
GLM-4.7-FlashX features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, GLM-4.7-Flash provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between GLM-4.7-FlashX and GLM-4.7-Flash?+
GLM-4.7-FlashX generates approximately 150 tokens per second, while GLM-4.7-Flash delivers 160 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, GLM-4.7-Flash provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining GLM-4.7-FlashX and GLM-4.7-Flash to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to GLM-4.7-Flash to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to GLM-4.7-FlashX. This tiered routing pattern cuts overall API bills by up to 70%.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-4.7: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonBandingkan
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonBandingkan
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonBandingkan
- GLM-5 vs GLM-4.7-FlashX: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonBandingkan
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonBandingkan
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonBandingkan
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
Sumber resmi: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs