Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs GLM-4.7
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GLM-4.7 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 8 to GLM-4.7.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 16
- GLM-4.7 only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 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 55.47. 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 69.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 80.4% to 52%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 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. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | Margin← 92.2 | GLM-4.71.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin← 24.9 | GLM-4.745.7 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin→ 5.6 | GLM-4.775.4 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin← 5.2 | GLM-4.751.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 80.4%B 52%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 28.4BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 52%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 41%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 22.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; GLM-4.7 scored 41%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.5%B 24.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 9.7HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; GLM-4.7 scored 24.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.4%B 73.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 5.6SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 85.7%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 3.4GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | GLM-4.782 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | GLM-4.71.10 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | GLM-4.7200K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 41% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | 52% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 95.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 33.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 1165 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 25.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 15.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.95% | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-4.7 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | 73.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 45.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 45.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 84.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 85.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 24.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 33.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 85.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 25.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | -34.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 29.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 90.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 94.0% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 95.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 2.439% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 0.000% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | 1255 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 67.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 80.4% and 52%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.7?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.4 versus 69.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.7?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 1.8. GLM-4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GLM-4.7?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 45.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.