Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs o1

Data verified July 24, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

GLM-4.7

Z.AI

61.16/100

Margin

13.1pts

← winning

OpenAI

48.1/100

0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported); o1 #129 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and o1 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 2 to o1.

Updated July 24, 2026

Shared results: 14
GLM-4.7 only: 16
o1 only: 2
Comparable categories: 2 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 48.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 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.

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 o1
Category	GLM-4.7	Δ	o1
Knowledge	GLM-4.751.8	Margin→ 23.9	o175.7
Math	GLM-4.71.8	Margin→ 7.5	o19.3
Agentic	GLM-4.745.7	MarginNo overlap	o1Not measured
Coding	GLM-4.775.4	MarginNo overlap	o1Not measured
Inst. Following	GLM-4.7Not measured	MarginNo overlap	o192.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

A · GLM-4.7B · o1

GPQA
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 85.7%B 75.7%
Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 10
GPQA: GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%; o1 scored 75.7%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
Source ↗
A 2.439%B 9.310%
Winner: o1Δ 6.9
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GLM-4.7 scored 2.439%; o1 scored 9.310%. o1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

Metric	GLM-4.7	o1	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output	o1$15 input / $60 output	GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per second	GLM-4.782 tok/s	o198 tok/s	o1 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	GLM-4.71.10 s	o132.29 s	GLM-4.7 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	GLM-4.7200K	o1200K	Listed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic

8 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	41%	—	Not comparable
BrowseCompSource	52%	—	Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource	15.5%	—	Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource	25.4%	—	Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource	95.9%	62.6%	GLM-4.7 leads
Gert LabsSource	39.95%	—	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	33.3%	—	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	1165	—	Not comparable

Coding

6 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	73.8%	—	Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource	84.9%	—	Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource	58.7%	—	Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource	45.3%	39.7%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource	45.1%	35.8%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA LiveCodeBenchSource	89.4%	—	Not comparable

Reasoning

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
AA-LCRSource	64.0%	59.3%	GLM-4.7 leads
CritPtSource	1.7%	0.3%	GLM-4.7 leads

Knowledgeo1 wins

10 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
GPQASource	85.7%	75.7%	GLM-4.7 leads
MMLU-ProSource	84.3%	—	Not comparable
HLESource	24.8%	—	Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	33.7%	23.4%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	85.9%	74.7%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-HLESource	25.1%	7.7%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	-34.6%	-10.5%	o1 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	29.3%	34.7%	o1 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	90.3%	69.3%	o1 leads
MMLUSource	—	91.8%	Not comparable

Matho1 wins

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
AIME 2025Source	95.7%	—	Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source	2.439%	9.310%	o1 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source	0.000%	—	Not comparable

Multimodal

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource	1255	—	Not comparable

Inst. Following

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	GLM-4.7	o1	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	67.9%	70.3%	o1 leads
IFEvalSource	—	92.2%	Not comparable

Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, GLM-4.7 or o1?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 48.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 85.7% and 75.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-4.7 or o1?

o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GLM-4.7 or o1?

o1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 9.3 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

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

Last updated: July 24, 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.