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.
Z.ai (Zhipu)
GLM-4.7
55/100- ECI143.7
- Price$0.60 / $2.20
- Context205K
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
57/100- ECI142.2
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context200K
Moonshot AI
Kimi K2 Instruct
50/100- ECI139.9
- Price$0.57 / $2.30
- Context131K
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)
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Kimi K2 Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 69 | 67 | 64 |
| Price | 25% | 48 | 34 | 48 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 80 | 25 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 32 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 57/100 | 50/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 143.7 (best) | 142.2 | 139.9 |
| ECI rank | #94 of 165 (best) | #102 of 165 | #112 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 | $0.60 | $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 rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Anthropic API | Median of 11 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens (best) | 200,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 64,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | OpenModified MIT |
| API model ID | glm-4.7 | claude-haiku-4-5 | — |
| API providers | 31 | 48 (best) | 11 |
| Released | Dec 22, 2025 | Oct 15, 2025 | Jul 11, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | Feb 28, 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
Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
Kimi K2 Instruct$10.30
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.