ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2 Thinking

Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Haiku 4.5 58, Kimi K2 Thinking 58, GLM-4.7 56). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    56/100
    • ECI143.5
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI142.4
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
  3. Moonshot AI

    Kimi K2 Thinking

    Released Nov 6, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI146.0
    • Price$0.60 / $2.50
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Haiku 4.5 58/100, Kimi K2 Thinking 58/100, GLM-4.7 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Kimi K2 Thinking for raw capability and GLM-4.7 on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityKimi K2 ThinkingCapabilities Index (ECI): Kimi K2 Thinking 146.0 · GLM-4.7 143.5 · Claude Haiku 4.5 142.4
  • Lowest priceGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Kimi K2 Thinking $1.07 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextKimi K2 ThinkingKimi K2 Thinking 262,144 · GLM-4.7 204,800 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5GLM-4.7: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Kimi K2 Thinking: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and Kimi K2 ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Claude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2 Thinking
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%706973
Price25%503648
Inputs & features15%358035
Context window10%323237
Overall100%56/10058/10058/100
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 Thinking specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Claude Haiku 4.5AnthropicKimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.5142.4146.0 (best)
ECI rank#84 of 148#90 of 148#72 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3%71.2%84.2% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3% (best)66.7%83.1%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2% (best)13.2%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60 (best)$1.00$0.60 (best)
Output$2.20 (best)$5.00$2.50
Cached input$0.11$0.10 (best)—
Blended (3:1)$1.00 (best)$2.00$1.07
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Anthropic APIMedian of 10 providers
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens200,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens64,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model IDglm-4.7claude-haiku-4-5—
API providers2034 (best)10
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Oct 15, 2025Nov 6, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Feb 28, 2025Aug 2024
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 Thinking$11.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

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

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Haiku 4.5 58/100, Kimi K2 Thinking 58/100, GLM-4.7 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Kimi K2 Thinking for raw capability and GLM-4.7 on price. 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 Thinking?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Kimi K2 Thinking costs $0.60 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 10 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 $1.07 for Kimi K2 Thinking (1.1× as much) and $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Kimi K2 Thinking scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Kimi K2 Thinking 146.0 (#72 of 148), GLM-4.7 143.5 (#84 of 148) and Claude Haiku 4.5 142.4 (#90 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (143.4–147.6 vs 141.3–145.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Kimi K2 Thinking 84.2%, GLM-4.7 83.3%, Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-4.7 83.3%, Kimi K2 Thinking 83.1%, Claude Haiku 4.5 66.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 and Kimi K2 Thinking yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Kimi K2 Thinking 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?

Kimi K2 Thinking has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7 and 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000, Kimi K2 Thinking up to 262,144 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 Thinking accepts text. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 and Kimi K2 Thinking publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Kimi K2 Thinking came out Nov 6, 2025; Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Claude Haiku 4.5 Feb 28, 2025, Kimi K2 Thinking Aug 2024.

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.