Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-4.7
68
Ornith-1.0-9B
52
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Agentic
+2.2 difference
Coding
+1.2 difference
GLM-4.7
Ornith-1.0-9B
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
82 t/s
N/A
1.10s
N/A
200K
262K
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ornith-1.0-9B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
GLM-4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 68 to 52. 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 agentic, where it averages 45.3 against 43.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.8% to 69.4%.
Ornith-1.0-9B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 68 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.8% and 69.4%.
GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 69.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GLM-4.7 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 45.3 versus 43.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.