ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Jamba Large vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 42, GLM-4.7 41, Jamba Large 29). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. 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. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    42/100
    • ECI143.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.90
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 42/100, GLM-4.7 41/100, Jamba Large 29/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 on price and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 for long inputs. 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 priceQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Jamba Large $3.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 · Jamba Large 256,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7: Text · Jamba Large: Text · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Jamba LargeQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
Price50%482349
Inputs & features30%353535
Context window20%323637
Overall100%41/10029/10042/100

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 Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Jamba LargeAI21 LabsQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.7—143.8 (best)
ECI rank#94 of 165—#93 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3% (best)—80.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3%—86.7% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2%—40.4% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$2.00$0.30 (best)
Output$2.20 (best)$8.00$2.90
Cached input$0.11——
Blended (3:1)$1.00$3.50$0.95 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial AI21 Labs APIMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens256,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)4,096 tokens81,920 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpenApache 2.0
API model IDglm-4.7jamba-large—
API providers31 (best)112
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Jul 3, 2025Jul 25, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Aug 22, 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
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7, Jamba Large or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 42/100, GLM-4.7 41/100, Jamba Large 29/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 on price and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 for long inputs. 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 Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). GLM-4.7 costs $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); 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 $0.95 per million tokens for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 versus $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (1.1× as much) and $3.50 for Jamba Large (3.7× 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 Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 has an ECI of 143.8.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, Jamba Large and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 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?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 256,000 for Jamba Large and 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Jamba Large up to 4,096, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; Jamba Large accepts text; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025; Jamba Large came out Jul 3, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Jamba Large Aug 22, 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.