The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-4.7 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 50.7 to 34.6. GLM-5.3-Flash is 4.2x cheaper per token.

Zhipu AI · Zhipu AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.7 to 34.6, ranking #16 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, GLM-5.3-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 4.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

GLM-5.3-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose GLM-4.7

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.60/M input and $2.20/M output

Choose GLM-5.3-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.7 and ranks #16 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 4.2x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GLM-4.7
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Zhipu AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
34.6
#85
50.7
#16
Reasoning
34.5
#83
49.5
#15
Coding
17.8
#109
34.6
#30
Agents
9.7
#116
37.0
#13
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$0.60 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$2.20 / M
$0.50 / M
Context window
202,800
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
GLM-4.7
GLM-5.3-Flash
Tool use
8.2#133
32.2#5
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for GLM-4.7 · 15 for GLM-5.3-Flash

1 shared

GLM-4.7 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while GLM-5.3-Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Humanity's Last Exam).

GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-5.3-Flash costs less

For input processing, GLM-4.7 ($0.60/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, GLM-4.7 ($2.20/1M tokens) is 4.4x more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, GLM-4.7 is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com
Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7
Input tokens$0.60
Output tokens$2.20
Best providerFireworks
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

38.0B diff

GLM-4.7 has 38.0B more parameters than GLM-5.3-Flash, making it 11.9% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7
358.0Bparameters
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
320.0Bparameters
358.0B
GLM-4.7
320.0B
GLM-5.3-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to GLM-4.7's 202,800 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

Zhipu AI
GLM-4.7
Input202,800 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both GLM-4.7 and GLM-5.3-Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

GLM-4.7

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GLM-5.3-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under MIT.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

GLM-4.7

MIT

Open weights

GLM-5.3-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GLM-4.7 was released on 2025-12-22, while GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

GLM-5.3-Flash is 8 months newer than GLM-4.7.

GLM-4.7

Dec 22, 2025

8 months ago

GLM-5.3-Flash

Aug 26, 2026

1 weeks ago

8mo newer

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

GLM-4.7 is available from Fireworks, Novita. GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI, Novita, ZAI.

GLM-4.7

fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.20/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.20/1M

GLM-5.3-Flash

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
friendli logo
FriendliAI
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GLM-4.7 and GLM-5.3-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-4.7
✓ Preferred
GLM-5.3-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-4.7 vs GLM-5.3-Flash.

Which is better, GLM-4.7 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 50.7 to 34.6. GLM-4.7 is made by Zhipu AI and GLM-5.3-Flash is made by Zhipu AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does GLM-4.7 compare to GLM-5.3-Flash in benchmarks?

GLM-4.7 scores AIME 2025: 95.7%, Tau-bench: 87.4%, GPQA: 85.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 84.9%, MMLU-Pro: 84.3%. GLM-5.3-Flash scores CharXiv-R: 89.4%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, MMVU: 80.5%, Toolathlon: 78.4%, Chartography: 78.0%.

Is GLM-4.7 cheaper than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is 4.0x cheaper for input tokens. GLM-4.7 costs $0.60/M input and $2.20/M output via fireworks. GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.50/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for GLM-4.7 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-4.7 supports 203K tokens and GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between GLM-4.7 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (34.6 vs 50.7), context window (203K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.60 vs $0.15/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Related comparisons