ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 66 to 57 and 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    66/100
    • ECI140.6
    • Price$0.30 / $2.50
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash

  2. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove GLM-4.7

  3. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI142.2
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 4.5
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (57) and GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. GLM-4.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGLM-4.7Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 · Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 · Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6
  • Lowest priceGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · GLM-4.7 204,800 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · GLM-4.7: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7Claude Haiku 4.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%656967
Price25%514834
Inputs & features15%1003580
Context window10%613232
Overall100%66/10055/10057/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 2.5 FlashGoogleGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)140.6143.7 (best)142.2
ECI rank#110 of 165#94 of 165 (best)#102 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—83.3% (best)71.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—83.3% (best)66.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—32.2% (best)13.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30 (best)$0.60$1.00
Output$2.50$2.20 (best)$5.00
Cached input$0.03 (best)$0.11$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.85 (best)$1.00$2.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)204,800 tokens200,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens (best)64,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoYes
PDFsYesNoYes
AudioYesNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenProprietary
API model IDgemini-2.5-flashglm-4.7claude-haiku-4-5
API providers323148 (best)
ReleasedJun 17, 2025Dec 22, 2025Oct 15, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Apr 2025Feb 28, 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
  • GLM-4.7$10.40
  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 2.5 Flash, GLM-4.7 or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (57) and GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. GLM-4.7 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GLM-4.7 or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). GLM-4.7 costs $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1.00 input / $5.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.85 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash versus $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (1.2× as much) and $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (2.4× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 (#94 of 165), Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 (#102 of 165) and Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6 (#110 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.4–145.8 vs 139.4–143.9), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.5 Flash, GLM-4.7 and Claude Haiku 4.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-4.7 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7 and 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; GLM-4.7 accepts text; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash and Claude Haiku 4.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025; Gemini 2.5 Flash came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025, GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Claude Haiku 4.5 Feb 28, 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons