Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
GLM-4.7

Z.AI

60.7/100

Supported · Public rank #55

90% interval 46.8–74.5

GLM-4.7 vs Trinity-Large-Thinking

Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Trinity-Large-Thinking

Arcee AI

47.7/100

Supported · Public rank #143

90% interval 30.7–64.7

Decision reading

GLM-4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 60.66 versus 47.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

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

    Trinity-Large-Thinking

    Trinity-Large-Thinking 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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. Trinity-Large-Thinking 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.

Shared results
1
GLM-4.7 only
12
Trinity-Large-Thinking only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
75.4
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
Not measured
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
51.8
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
1.8
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
Not measured
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
Not measured
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GLM-4.7
Not measured
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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
Trinity-Large-Thinking
$0.0007
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
Trinity-Large-Thinking
$0.0152
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
Trinity-Large-Thinking
$0.064
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

GLM-4.7 does not fit this workload in one request. Trinity-Large-Thinking 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GLM-4.7

200K

Trinity-Large-Thinking

512K

API model ID

GLM-4.7

Not sourced

Trinity-Large-Thinking

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

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Not published

Documented inputs

GLM-4.7

Not sourced

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-4.7

Not sourced

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-4.7

Not sourced

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-4.7

Reasoning

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-4.7

Open Weight

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Open Weight

License

GLM-4.7

Open Weight

Trinity-Large-Thinking

Open Weight

Release date

GLM-4.7

2025-10-01

Trinity-Large-Thinking

2026-03-10

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 estimate, 60.66 versus 47.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Trinity-Large-Thinking has the larger documented window (512K).

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 evidence17 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-4.741%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GLM-4.752%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    GLM-4.715.5%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    GLM-4.739.95%
    Trinity-Large-Thinking32.55%

    GLM-4.7 leads this result

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    GLM-4.773.8%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench

    GLM-4.784.9%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    GLM-4.758.7%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    GLM-4.7—
    Trinity-Large-Thinking63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GLM-4.785.7%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    GLM-4.784.3%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GLM-4.724.8%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GLM-4.7—
    Trinity-Large-Thinking76.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    GLM-4.7—
    Trinity-Large-Thinking83.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    GLM-4.795.7%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GLM-4.72.439%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GLM-4.70.000%
    Source
    Trinity-Large-Thinking—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    GLM-4.7—
    Trinity-Large-Thinking96.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GLM-4.7 or Trinity-Large-Thinking?

GLM-4.7 has the higher public score estimate, 60.66 versus 47.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or Trinity-Large-Thinking?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-4.7 or Trinity-Large-Thinking?

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 Trinity-Large-Thinking?

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 Trinity-Large-Thinking?

Trinity-Large-Thinking has the larger documented context window: 512K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 14, 2026

Watch GLM-4.7 vs Trinity-Large-Thinking

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.