ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Jamba Large vs o4-mini-deep-research

GLM-4.7 comes out ahead, 41 to 37 and 29 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    41/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
  2. AI21 Labs

    Jamba Large

    Released Jul 3, 2025

    29/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$2.00 / $8.00
    • Context256K
  3. OpenAI

    o4-mini-deep-research

    Released Jun 26, 2025

    37/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$1.80 / $7.20
    • Context200K
01 — Verdict

GLM-4.7 is our pick

GLM-4.7 is the better all-round choice, scoring 41/100 against o4-mini-deep-research (37) and Jamba Large (29). It leads on price. Jamba Large wins on context window. o4-mini-deep-research wins on inputs & features. 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 priceGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 $1.00 · o4-mini-deep-research $3.15 · Jamba Large $3.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextJamba LargeJamba Large 256,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 · o4-mini-deep-research 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputso4-mini-deep-researchGLM-4.7: Text · Jamba Large: Text · o4-mini-deep-research: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and Jamba LargePublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Jamba Largeo4-mini-deep-research
Price50%482325
Inputs & features30%353560
Context window20%323632
Overall100%41/10029/10037/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

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 Jamba Large vs o4-mini-deep-research specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Jamba LargeAI21 Labso4-mini-deep-researchOpenAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.7——
ECI rank#94 of 165——
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3%——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3%——
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2%——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60 (best)$2.00$1.80
Output$2.20 (best)$8.00$7.20
Cached input$0.11——
Blended (3:1)$1.00 (best)$3.50$3.15
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial AI21 Labs APIMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens256,000 tokens (best)200,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)4,096 tokens100,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenProprietary
API model IDglm-4.7jamba-large—
API providers31 (best)11
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Jul 3, 2025Jun 26, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Aug 22, 2024May 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
  • Jamba Large$36.00
  • o4-mini-deep-research$32.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7, Jamba Large or o4-mini-deep-research?

GLM-4.7 is the better all-round choice, scoring 41/100 against o4-mini-deep-research (37) and Jamba Large (29). It leads on price. Jamba Large wins on context window. o4-mini-deep-research wins on inputs & features. 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, Jamba Large or o4-mini-deep-research?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). o4-mini-deep-research costs $1.80 input / $7.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Jamba Large costs $2.00 input / $8.00 output per million tokens (official AI21 Labs 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 $3.15 for o4-mini-deep-research (3.1× as much) and $3.50 for Jamba Large (3.5× 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, Jamba Large has not been scored yet and o4-mini-deep-research has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, Jamba Large and o4-mini-deep-research 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?

Jamba Large has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7 and 200,000 for o4-mini-deep-research. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Jamba Large up to 4,096, o4-mini-deep-research up to 100,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; Jamba Large accepts text; o4-mini-deep-research accepts text and images. o4-mini-deep-research handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 and Jamba Large publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; o4-mini-deep-research is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Jamba Large came out Jul 3, 2025; o4-mini-deep-research came out Jun 26, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Jamba Large Aug 22, 2024, o4-mini-deep-research May 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 Nov 2, 2026.