at a glance

GLM-4.7 FlashClaude Sonnet 4.6
providerZhipu AIAnthropic
parameters730B total / 3B active (MoE)~mid-size (est.)
context window128k tokens1m tokens

benchmarks

GPQA Diamond (graduate science) ?
GLM-4.7 Flash
75.2%
Claude Sonnet 4.6
89.9%
SWE-bench Verified (software engineering) ?
GLM-4.7 Flash
59.2%
Claude Sonnet 4.6
79.6%
TAU-bench (agentic tool use) ?
GLM-4.7 Flash
79.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.6
91.7%
Terminal Bench (shell tasks) ?
GLM-4.7 Flash
64.0%*
Claude Sonnet 4.6
59.1%
Cost (per 1m tokens) ?
GLM-4.7 Flash
$0.07 in / $0.40 out
Claude Sonnet 4.6
$3.00 in / $15.00 out
GLM-4.7 Flash Claude Sonnet 4.6 bold score = winner

what are these models?

GLM-4.7 Flash is Zhipu AI’s fast inference model from the GLM-4.7 family. It shows strong performance on terminal automation and mathematical reasoning — standout capabilities relative to its general benchmark profile.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is Anthropic’s mid-tier model, known for strong software engineering performance and a 1m token context window. It is closed-source and accessed via Anthropic’s API.

benchmark breakdown

Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins on science, coding, and tool use. GPQA Diamond (89.9% vs 75.2%) shows a 14.7-point lead on graduate-level science. SWE-bench Verified (79.6% vs 59.2%) is a 20.4-point gap on software engineering. TAU-bench (91.7% vs 79.5%) favors Sonnet 4.6 by 12.2 points.

GLM-4.7 Flash wins on terminal tasks. Terminal tasks (64.0%* vs 59.1%) show a 4.9-point gap.

what people are saying

when to use GLM-4.7 Flash

  • terminal and CLI automation is your core workflow
  • you need fast, cost-efficient inference

when to use Claude Sonnet 4.6

  • software engineering, code review, or bug fixing are primary use cases
  • graduate-level scientific reasoning matters
  • you need a 1m token context window for long documents or codebases
  • you want a reliable, hosted API with enterprise support

matching performance without increasing cost

For software engineering tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6’s 20.4-point lead on SWE-bench is significant — but teams can narrow or even overcome this gap by fine-tuning an open model on their own codebase. In CLI and terminal workflows, where GLM-4.7 Flash already shows strong performance, additional fine-tuning on real shell task data can further amplify that advantage while keeping costs low.

frequently asked questions

which is better for coding?

claude sonnet 4.6 — 79.6% vs 59.2% on swe-bench verified, a 20.4-point gap.

what about terminal and shell tasks?

glm-4.7 flash wins — 64.0%* vs 59.1% on terminal bench. note the asterisk may indicate specific evaluation conditions.

does sonnet 4.6 have a longer context window?

yes — 1m tokens vs 128k for glm-4.7 flash. for very long document or codebase tasks, sonnet 4.6’s context window is a structural advantage.