GLM-4.7 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 66 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7
55/100- ECI143.7
- Price$0.60 / $2.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
66/100- ECI140.6
- Price$0.30 / $2.50
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against 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 · Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6
- Lowest priceGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashGLM-4.7: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-4.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7 | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 69 | 65 |
| Price | 25% | 48 | 51 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 100 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 66/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 143.7 (best) | 140.6 |
| ECI rank | #94 of 165 (best) | #110 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 83.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 32.2% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.60 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $2.20 (best) | $2.50 |
| Cached input | $0.11 | $0.03 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.00 | $0.85 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 204,800 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 | gemini-2.5-flash |
| API providers | 31 | 32 (best) |
| Released | Dec 22, 2025 | 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$10.40
- Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against 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, GLM-4.7 or Gemini 2.5 Flash?
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). 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).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GLM-4.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 (#94 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 138.4–142.1), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7 and Gemini 2.5 Flash 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. Both 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. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7 accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. 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 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Gemini 2.5 Flash came out Jun 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Gemini 2.5 Flash 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Three-way comparison
- GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
- GLM-4.7 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI · ECI 145.9
- GLM-4.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55BNVIDIA · ECI 146.0
- GLM-4.7 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogle · ECI 145.0
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek · ECI 141.2
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
