Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Trinity-Large-Thinking
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #32; Trinity-Large-Thinking unranked
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and Trinity-Large-Thinking share 16 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 4 to Trinity-Large-Thinking.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- GLM-4.7 only
- 15
- Trinity-Large-Thinking only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GLM-4.7 and Trinity-Large-Thinking is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Trinity-Large-Thinking is priced at $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. Trinity-Large-Thinking has the larger context window at 512K, 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 | GLM-4.7 | Δ | Trinity-Large-Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Coding | GLM-4.773.8 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-4.752.1 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | MarginNo overlap | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Trinity-Large-Thinking$0.25 input / $0.9 output | GLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | Trinity-Large-ThinkingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | Trinity-Large-Thinking512K | Trinity-Large-Thinking lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | 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 |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 95.9% | 90.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | 32.55% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | 2.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | 554 | GLM-4.7 leads |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.8% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | 84.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 45.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 31.8% | 22.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.1% | 36.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | 89.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 24.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 24.5% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.9% | 75.2% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 25.1% | 14.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -34.6% | -44.2% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 29.3% | 22.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.3% | 86.6% | Trinity-Large-Thinking leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1260 | 1169 | GLM-4.7 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | 56.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GLM-4.7 and Trinity-Large-Thinking on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for GLM-4.7 and Trinity-Large-Thinking today?
GLM-4.7: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Trinity-Large-Thinking: $0.25 input / $0.90 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.