Model comparison
Composer 2.5 vs GLM-4.7
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2.5 unranked; GLM-4.7 #32
BenchAlign evidence: Composer 2.5 not scored; GLM-4.7 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Composer 2.5 and GLM-4.7 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Composer 2.5; 30 to GLM-4.7.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Composer 2.5 only
- 4
- GLM-4.7 only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Composer 2.5 makes more sense if agentic is the priority; GLM-4.7 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Composer 2.5 and GLM-4.7 finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Composer 2.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 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.
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 | Composer 2.5 | Δ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Composer 2.569.3 | Margin← 23.6 | GLM-4.745.7 |
| Coding | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.775.4 |
| Knowledge | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.752.1 |
| Math | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.71.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 69.3%B 41%Winner: Composer 2.5Δ 28.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2.5 scored 69.3%; GLM-4.7 scored 41%. Composer 2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2.5$0.5 input / $2.5 output | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Composer 2.5Not available | GLM-4.782 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2.5Not available | GLM-4.71.10 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2.5200K | GLM-4.7200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticComposer 2.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.3% | 41% | Composer 2.5 leads |
| 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 | — | 1165 | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 79.8% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 63.2% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 45.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.1% | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1260 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Composer 2.5 or GLM-4.7?
Composer 2.5 and GLM-4.7 are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or GLM-4.7?
Composer 2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.3 versus 45.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.