GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 85 to 61 on our weighted score, though GLM-4.7-FlashX is 13% cheaper per token.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
85/100- ECI133.9
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. GLM-4.7-FlashX wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGLM-4.7-FlashXGLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-4.7-FlashXPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7-FlashX | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 85/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 133.9 |
| ECI rank | — | #118 of 148 |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.07 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.40 |
| Cached input | $0.01 | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.152 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.7-flashx | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 8 | 20 (best) |
| Released | Jan 19, 2026 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7-FlashX or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 85/100 against GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. GLM-4.7-FlashX wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-FlashX or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.152 per million tokens for GLM-4.7-FlashX versus $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has an ECI of 133.9.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7-FlashX and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.7-FlashX publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is the newest, released Jan 19, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Step 3.5 FlashThree-way comparison
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Devstral Small 2Mistral AI
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Seed 2.0 LiteByteDance Seed
- GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Trendyol Asure 12BTrendyol
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 136.2
