Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.74/100
Margin
13.4pts
winning →
61.16/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GLM-4.7 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 26 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
0
GLM-4.7 only
26
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GLM-4.7 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 61.16 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GLM-4.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.4 against 49. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59.4% to 85.7%. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GLM-4.7 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GLM-4.7
CategoryClaude 3.5 SonnetΔGLM-4.7
CodingClaude 3.5 Sonnet49.0Margin→ 26.4GLM-4.775.4
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet59.4Margin← 7.6GLM-4.751.8
MathClaude 3.5 Sonnet1.6Margin→ 0.2GLM-4.71.8
AgenticClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.745.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 3.5 SonnetB · GLM-4.7

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 59.4%B 85.7%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 26.3
    GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 73.8%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 24.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.069%B 2.439%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 0.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 2.069%; GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableGLM-4.782 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableGLM-4.71.10 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet200KGLM-4.7200KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —41%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —52%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —15.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —25.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.95%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —33.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1165Not comparable
CodingGLM-4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 49%73.8%GLM-4.7 leads
LiveCodeBenchSource —84.9%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —45.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.1%Not comparable
AA LiveCodeBenchSource —89.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
AA-LCRSource —64.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource —1.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
GPQASource 59.4%85.7%GLM-4.7 leads
MMLU-ProSource —84.3%Not comparable
HLESource —24.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —33.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —85.9%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —25.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-34.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —29.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathGLM-4.7 wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 2.069%2.439%GLM-4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%0.000%Tie
AIME 2025Source —95.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1258Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetGLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —67.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59.4% and 85.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or GLM-4.7?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 51.8. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.4 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 1.8 versus 1.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.