GLM-4.7 vs Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Seed 1.6 Flash
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 81 to 47 and 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7
41/100- ECI143.7
- Price$0.60 / $2.20
- Context205K
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
47/100- ECI142.2
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Flash
81/100- ECI—
- Price$0.022 / $0.223
- Context256K
Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 81/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (47) and GLM-4.7 (41). It leads on price and context window. 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 priceSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5 and Seed 1.6 FlashGLM-4.7: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Seed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingGLM-4.7Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Seed 1.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 48 | 34 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 32 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 41/100 | 47/100 | 81/100 |
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-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) | Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 143.7 (best) | 142.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #94 of 165 (best) | #102 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 | $0.022 (best) |
| Output | $2.20 | $5.00 | $0.223 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.0044 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.00 | $2.00 | $0.072 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Anthropic API | Official Volcengine Ark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 204,800 tokens | 200,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 64,000 tokens | 32,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.7 | claude-haiku-4-5 | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 |
| API providers | 31 | 48 (best) | 5 |
| Released | Dec 22, 2025 | Oct 15, 2025 | Aug 28, 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
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 81/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (47) and GLM-4.7 (41). It leads on price and context window. 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, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Seed 1.6 Flash?
Seed 1.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.022 input / $0.223 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). GLM-4.7 costs $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); 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 $0.072 per million tokens for Seed 1.6 Flash versus $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (14× as much) and $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (28× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.7 has an ECI of 143.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 has an ECI of 142.2 and Seed 1.6 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, Claude Haiku 4.5 and Seed 1.6 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Seed 1.6 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 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, Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7 accepts text; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text, images and video. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.7 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 and Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025; Seed 1.6 Flash came out Aug 28, 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.
Related comparisons
- 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
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral AI · ECI 141.5
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
