GLM-5 vs GLM-4.7-FlashX
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
GLM-5 by Zhipu AI and GLM-4.7-FlashX 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-5 holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, GLM-5 is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, GLM-5 provides an expanded memory horizon with 205K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, GLM-4.7-FlashX 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.
切换并对比任意模型
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
GLM-5
开源权重模型Zhipu AI 推出的 GLM-5 人工智能模型，具备 204K 上下文窗口，输入价格为 $0/百万 Token，输出价格为 $0/百万 Token，专为高质量生产环境、推理与自动化工作流打造。
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
204.8K tokens
58%
GLM-4.7-FlashX
深度推理模型Zhipu AI 推出的 GLM-4.7-FlashX 人工智能模型，具备 200K 上下文窗口，输入价格为 $0.02/百万 Token，输出价格为 $0.04/百万 Token，专为高质量生产环境、推理与自动化工作流打造。
$0.02 / 1M
$0.04 / 1M
200K tokens
N/A
核心差异一览
- GLM-5 is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- GLM-5 has a larger context window (205K vs 200K tokens).
- GLM-4.7-FlashX is faster at 150 tok/s vs 68 tok/s.
| Feature | GLM-5 | GLM-4.7-FlashX |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 87 | 76 |
Provider | Zhipu AI | Zhipu AI |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.02 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.04 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $0.01 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 204.8K tokens~307 A4 pages of text | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 16K | 8K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 68 tok/s | 150 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 58% | N/A |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 68% | N/A |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
各项指标谁更胜一筹？
At-a-glance decision frameworkEvaluations ongoing
权威基准测试得分对比
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
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.
延迟与响应速度
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
实时 Token 成本模拟器
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
GLM-5 · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 由 Zhipu AI 研发的高精度 Frontier Sparse Mixture-of-Experts Autoregressive Transformer 架构，支持 204K 上下文窗口
- 极具竞争力的 API 定价（输入 $0/1M，输出 $0/1M），支持高速推理与工具调用
- 在代码生成、逻辑推理与多语言处理基准测试中表现出色
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 超长上下文请求需要规划 Token 成本与并发配额
- 针对特定垂直领域任务建议结合系统提示词与检索增强（RAG）以获得最佳效果
GLM-4.7-FlashX · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 由 Zhipu AI 研发的高精度 Enhanced Latency-Optimized Transformer 架构，支持 200K 上下文窗口
- 极具竞争力的 API 定价（输入 $0.02/1M，输出 $0.04/1M），支持高速推理与工具调用
- 在代码生成、逻辑推理与多语言处理基准测试中表现出色
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 超长上下文请求需要规划 Token 成本与并发配额
- 针对特定垂直领域任务建议结合系统提示词与检索增强（RAG）以获得最佳效果
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | GLM-5 | GLM-4.7-FlashX |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.00 | $0.01 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 24K | 13K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 8K | 1K |
技术规格参数
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | GLM-5 | GLM-4.7-FlashX |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | glm-5 | glm-4-7-flashx |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2026-02 | 2026-01 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | December 2025 | November 2025 |
| Architecture | Frontier Sparse Mixture-of-Experts Autoregressive Transformer | Enhanced Latency-Optimized Transformer |
| Parameters | 240B MoE | 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) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Flat rate ($0.02/1M in) across full 200K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Cached input at $0.003/1M 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) · 149 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 516 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-5 vs GLM-4.7-FlashX: 常见问题解答 (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, GLM-5 or GLM-4.7-FlashX?
GLM-5 is more intelligent. It scores 87 compared with 76 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is faster, generating 150 tokens per second compared with 68 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
GLM-5 is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.01 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
GLM-4.7-FlashX has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.26s compared with 0.58s.
Which model has a larger context window?
GLM-5 has a larger context window, supporting 204.8K tokens compared with 200K tokens.
综合结论
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose GLM-5 if your priority is Enterprise software development agents, research automation, and private corporate intelligence. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose GLM-4.7-FlashX if your workflow prioritizes Mission-critical automated routing, backend agent functions, and high-frequency API bridges. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
常见问题 (FAQ)
How does GLM-5 compare to GLM-4.7-FlashX in API token pricing and cost per token?+
GLM-5 costs $0.00 per 1M input tokens and $0.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $0.02 input and $0.04 output. Overall, GLM-5 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-5 or GLM-4.7-FlashX?+
GLM-5 supports a context window of 205K tokens (~154k words), while GLM-4.7-FlashX supports 200K tokens (~150k words). Therefore, GLM-5 can process more textual data and document context in a single prompt.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: GLM-5 or GLM-4.7-FlashX?+
GLM-5 scores 58% on SWE-bench Verified, while GLM-4.7-FlashX scores competitively for software generation. For complex autonomous debugging and agentic engineering, GLM-5 provides robust code generation and tool calling.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between GLM-5 and GLM-4.7-FlashX?+
GLM-5 features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, GLM-4.7-FlashX provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between GLM-5 and GLM-4.7-FlashX?+
GLM-5 generates approximately 68 tokens per second, while GLM-4.7-FlashX delivers 150 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, GLM-4.7-FlashX provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining GLM-5 and GLM-4.7-FlashX to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to GLM-5 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-FlashX vs GLM-4.7-Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Qwen3 Max vs GLM-5: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
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.
数据来源: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs