Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.25/100
Margin
3.9pts
winning →
61.16/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM-4.7 share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 8 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
22
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
2
GLM-4.7 only
8
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 7 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 57.25. 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 knowledge, where it averages 51.8 against 27.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 14.138% to 2.439%. Gemini 2.5 Pro does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 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 Gemini 2.5 Pro 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. Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 scores and score margins for Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM-4.7
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProΔGLM-4.7
KnowledgeGemini 2.5 Pro27.4Margin→ 24.4GLM-4.751.8
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro63.8Margin→ 11.6GLM-4.775.4
MathGemini 2.5 Pro11.6Margin← 9.8GLM-4.71.8
AgenticGemini 2.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.745.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 2.5 ProB · GLM-4.7

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 14.138%B 2.439%
    Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 11.7
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 14.138%; GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 63.8%B 73.8%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 10
    SWE-bench Verified: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%; GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 18.8%B 24.8%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 6
    HLE: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%; GLM-4.7 scored 24.8%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

  4. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 0.000%
    Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 4.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 4.167%; GLM-4.7 scored 0.000%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83%B 85.7%
    Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 2.7
    GPQA: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%; 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.

MetricGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/sGLM-4.782 tok/sGemini 2.5 Pro has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 2.5 Pro21.19 sGLM-4.71.10 sGLM-4.7 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 2.5 Pro1MGLM-4.7200KGemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
AA Agentic IndexSource 7.1%25.4%GLM-4.7 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 54.1%95.9%GLM-4.7 leads
Gert LabsSource 42.01%39.95%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 8.3%33.3%GLM-4.7 leads
GDPval-AASource 6651165GLM-4.7 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —41%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —52%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —15.5%Not comparable
CodingGLM-4.7 wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 63.8%73.8%GLM-4.7 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 0.40%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 33.3%45.3%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.8%45.1%GLM-4.7 leads
LiveCodeBenchSource —84.9%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.7%Not comparable
AA LiveCodeBenchSource —89.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
AA-LCRSource 66.0%64.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
CritPtSource 2.6%1.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
KnowledgeGLM-4.7 wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
GPQASource 83%85.7%GLM-4.7 leads
HLESource 18.8%24.8%GLM-4.7 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.8%33.7%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.4%85.9%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-HLESource 21.1%25.1%GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -14.3%-34.6%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 39.0%29.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.4%90.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
MMLU-ProSource —84.3%Not comparable
MathGemini 2.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 14.138%2.439%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%0.000%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AIME 2025Source —95.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11971255GLM-4.7 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProGLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource 48.7%67.9%GLM-4.7 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 14.138% and 2.439%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.8 versus 27.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.4 versus 63.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM-4.7?

Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 11.6 versus 1.8. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 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.