Coding
Directional only- GLM-4.7
- 75.4
- Grok Code Fast 1
- 70.8
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
GLM-4.7 vs Grok Code Fast 1
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
GLM-4.7 has the higher public score, 60.91 versus 37.81, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-4.7 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 GLM-4.7 only
1 Shared
- Shared results
- 1
- GLM-4.7 only
- 12
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- 45.7
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- 51.8
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- 1.8
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GLM-4.7
- Not measured
- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GLM-4.7 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 75.4 | 70.8 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 45.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.8 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 1.8 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GLM-4.7
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.00095
- Fits in one request
GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GLM-4.7
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.0145
- Fits in one request
GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GLM-4.7
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.059
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GLM-4.7 does not fit this workload in one request. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-4.7 has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGLM-4.7Grok Code Fast 1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GLM-4.7
200K
Grok Code Fast 1
256K
API model ID
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GLM-4.7
No comparable hosted API rate
Grok Code Fast 1
Not published
Documented inputs
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Provider availability
GLM-4.7
Not sourced
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GLM-4.7
Reasoning
Grok Code Fast 1
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
GLM-4.7
Open Weight
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
License
GLM-4.7
Open Weight
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Release date
GLM-4.7
2025-10-01
Grok Code Fast 1
2025-08-28
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- GLM-4.7 has the higher public score, 60.91 versus 37.81, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Grok Code Fast 1 has the larger documented window (256K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence13 rows
Agentic
Coding
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Grok Code Fast 1?
GLM-4.7 has the higher public score, 60.91 versus 37.81, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or Grok Code Fast 1?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-4.7 or Grok Code Fast 1?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, GLM-4.7 or Grok Code Fast 1?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, GLM-4.7 or Grok Code Fast 1?
Grok Code Fast 1 has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch GLM-4.7 vs Grok Code Fast 1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.