Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2.5
82
GLM-4.7
69
Pick Composer 2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+24.0 difference
Composer 2.5
GLM-4.7
$0.5 / $2.5
$0 / $0
N/A
82 t/s
N/A
1.10s
200K
200K
Pick Composer 2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Composer 2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 82 to 69. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.3 against 45.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.3% to 41%.
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.
Composer 2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.3% and 41%.
Composer 2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.3 versus 45.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.