Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.61/100
Margin
7.5pts
winning →
61.16/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GLM-4.7 share 9 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 21 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
9
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
3
GLM-4.7 only
21
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 9 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 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 53.61. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 and GLM-4.7
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.5ΔGLM-4.7
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.583.4Margin← 31.6GLM-4.751.8
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.555.4Margin← 9.7GLM-4.745.7
MathClaude Sonnet 4.511.2Margin← 9.4GLM-4.71.8
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.577.2Margin← 1.8GLM-4.775.4
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.513.6MarginNo overlapGLM-4.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.5B · GLM-4.7

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 13.495%B 2.439%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 11.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.495%; GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 50%B 41%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; GLM-4.7 scored 41%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 0.000%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 4.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 4.167%; GLM-4.7 scored 0.000%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 73.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 3.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 85.7%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 2.3
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableGLM-4.782 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableGLM-4.71.10 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5200KGLM-4.7200KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50%41%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 61.4%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 17.0%15.5%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 48.51%39.95%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 27.7%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —52%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —25.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —33.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1165Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%73.8%Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 13.6%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —64.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource —1.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
GPQASource 83.4%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
MathClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
AIME 2025Source 87%95.7%GLM-4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 13.495%2.439%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%0.000%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12221258GLM-4.7 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —67.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 13.495% and 2.439%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 51.8. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 75.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 11.2 versus 1.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.4 versus 45.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.