ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2 Instruct

Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Haiku 4.5 57, GLM-4.7 55, Kimi K2 Instruct 50). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI142.2
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
  3. Moonshot AI

    Kimi K2 Instruct

    Released Jul 11, 2025

    50/100
    • ECI139.9
    • Price$0.57 / $2.30
    • Context131K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Claude Haiku 4.5 57/100, GLM-4.7 55/100, Kimi K2 Instruct 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7 for raw 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 · Kimi K2 Instruct 139.9
  • Lowest priceGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Kimi K2 Instruct $1.00 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 204,800 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · Kimi K2 Instruct 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5GLM-4.7: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Kimi K2 Instruct: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and Kimi K2 InstructPublishes downloadable weights (Modified MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Claude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2 Instruct
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%696764
Price25%483448
Inputs & features15%358025
Context window10%323225
Overall100%55/10057/10050/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2 Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Claude Haiku 4.5AnthropicKimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.7 (best)142.2139.9
ECI rank#94 of 165 (best)#102 of 165#112 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3% (best)71.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3% (best)66.7%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2% (best)13.2%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$1.00$0.57 (best)
Output$2.20 (best)$5.00$2.30
Cached input$0.11$0.10 (best)—
Blended (3:1)$1.00 (best)$2.00$1.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Anthropic APIMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens (best)200,000 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)64,000 tokens32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpenModified MIT
API model IDglm-4.7claude-haiku-4-5—
API providers3148 (best)11
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Oct 15, 2025Jul 11, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 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.

  • GLM-4.7$10.40
  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
  • Kimi K2 Instruct$10.30
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Kimi K2 Instruct?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Claude Haiku 4.5 57/100, GLM-4.7 55/100, Kimi K2 Instruct 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Kimi K2 Instruct?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Kimi K2 Instruct costs $0.57 input / $2.30 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers); 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 $1.00 per million tokens for GLM-4.7 versus $1.00 for Kimi K2 Instruct (1× as much) and $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (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), Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 (#102 of 165) and Kimi K2 Instruct 139.9 (#112 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 GLM-4.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 and Kimi K2 Instruct 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?

GLM-4.7 has the largest context window at 204,800 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5 and 131,072 for Kimi K2 Instruct. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000, Kimi K2 Instruct up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Kimi K2 Instruct accepts text. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 and Kimi K2 Instruct publishes its weights (Modified MIT) and can be self-hosted; 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; Kimi K2 Instruct came out Jul 11, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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.