Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Inkling

Data verified July 15, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

GLM-4.7

Z.AI

60.98/100

Margin

8.0pts

winning →

Inkling

Thinking Machines Lab

69/100

2 category wins2 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #32; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: GLM-4.7 supported; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Inkling share 5 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 11 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026

Shared results: 5
GLM-4.7 only: 26
Inkling only: 11
Comparable categories: 4 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 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

Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 1.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 52% to 77.1%. GLM-4.7 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 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 Inkling 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. Inkling 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 GLM-4.7 and Inkling
Category	GLM-4.7	Δ	Inkling
Math	GLM-4.71.8	Margin→ 95.3	Inkling97.1
Agentic	GLM-4.745.7	Margin→ 23.7	Inkling69.4
Coding	GLM-4.775.4	Margin← 6.8	Inkling68.6
Knowledge	GLM-4.752.1	Margin← 0.4	Inkling51.7
Multimodal	GLM-4.7Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling76.5
Inst. Following	GLM-4.7Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Inkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

A · GLM-4.7B · Inkling

BrowseComp
Agentic
Source ↗
A 52%B 77.1%
Winner: InklingΔ 25.1
BrowseComp: GLM-4.7 scored 52%; Inkling scored 77.1%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Source ↗
A 41%B 63.8%
Winner: InklingΔ 22.8
Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-4.7 scored 41%; Inkling scored 63.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
HLE
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 24.8%B 46%
Winner: InklingΔ 21.2
HLE: GLM-4.7 scored 24.8%; Inkling scored 46%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Source ↗
A 73.8%B 77.6%
Winner: InklingΔ 3.8
SWE-bench Verified: GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
GPQA
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 85.7%B 87.9%
Winner: InklingΔ 2.2
GPQA: GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metric	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output	Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output	GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per second	GLM-4.782 tok/s	InklingNot available	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	GLM-4.71.10 s	InklingNot available	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	GLM-4.7200K	Inkling1M	Inkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticInkling wins

10 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	41%	63.8%	Inkling leads
BrowseCompSource	52%	77.1%	Inkling leads
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
MCP AtlasSource	—	74.1%	Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource	—	1258	Not comparable

CodingGLM-4.7 wins

9 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	73.8%	77.6%	Inkling leads
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
SWE-bench ProSource	—	54.3%	Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	—	63.8%	Not comparable

Reasoning

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
AA-LCRSource	64.0%	—	Not comparable
CritPtSource	1.7%	—	Not comparable

KnowledgeGLM-4.7 wins

11 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
GPQASource	85.7%	87.9%	Inkling leads
MMLU-ProSource	84.3%	—	Not comparable
HLESource	24.8%	46%	Inkling leads
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
GPQA-DSource	—	87.9%	Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource	—	30%	Not comparable

MathInkling wins

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
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
AIME26Source	—	97.1%	Not comparable

Multimodal

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource	1260	—	Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource	—	73.5%	Not comparable
CharXivSource	—	82%	Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource	—	78.1%	Not comparable

Inst. Following

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	Inkling	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	67.9%	—	Not comparable
IFBenchSource	—	79.8%	Not comparable

Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 52% and 77.1%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-4.7 or Inkling?

GLM-4.7 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.1 versus 51.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or Inkling?

GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.4 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GLM-4.7 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 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, GLM-4.7 or Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.4 versus 45.7. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Z.AI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings

Last updated: July 15, 2026

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.