Model Comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

Claude Sonnet 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. GLM-4.7-Flash is 39.3x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

4 benchmarks

Claude Sonnet 4.6 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified), while GLM-4.7-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-4.7-Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Sonnet 4.6 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 42.9x more expensive than GLM-4.7-Flash ($0.07/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Sonnet 4.6 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 37.5x more expensive than GLM-4.7-Flash ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is more expensive than GLM-4.7-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Input tokens$3.00
Output tokens$15.00
Best providerAnthropic
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Sonnet 4.6 accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to GLM-4.7-Flash's 128,000 tokens. Claude Sonnet 4.6 can generate longer responses up to 64,000 tokens, while GLM-4.7-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Input200,000 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash
Input128,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas GLM-4.7-Flash does not.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GLM-4.7-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while GLM-4.7-Flash uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

GLM-4.7-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released on 2026-02-17, while GLM-4.7-Flash was released on 2026-01-19.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is 1 month newer than GLM-4.7-Flash.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Feb 17, 2026

1 months ago

4w newer
GLM-4.7-Flash

Jan 19, 2026

2 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is available from Anthropic. GLM-4.7-Flash is available from ZAI.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $15.00/1M

GLM-4.7-Flash

z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher BrowseComp score (74.7% vs 42.8%)
Higher GPQA score (89.9% vs 75.2%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (49.0% vs 14.4%)
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (79.6% vs 59.2%)
Zhipu AI
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7-Flash

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GLM-4.7-Flash

Claude Sonnet 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is made by Anthropic and GLM-4.7-Flash is made by Zhipu AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores Tau2 Telecom: 97.9%, Tau2 Retail: 91.7%, GPQA: 89.9%, MMMLU: 89.3%, SWE-Bench Verified: 79.6%. GLM-4.7-Flash scores AIME 2025: 91.6%, Tau-bench: 79.5%, GPQA: 75.2%, SWE-Bench Verified: 59.2%, BrowseComp: 42.8%.
GLM-4.7-Flash is 42.9x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3.00/M input and $15.00/M output via anthropic. GLM-4.7-Flash costs $0.07/M input and $0.40/M output via z.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 200K tokens and GLM-4.7-Flash supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (200K vs 128K), input pricing ($3.00 vs $0.07/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and GLM-4.7-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI.