ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Seed 1.6 Vision

Seed 1.6 Vision comes out ahead, 61 to 42 and 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    41/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove GLM-4.7

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    42/100
    • ECI143.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
  3. Our pick

    ByteDance Seed

    Seed 1.6 Vision

    Released Aug 15, 2025Deprecated

    61/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.119 / $1.19
    • Context256K
    Full specs Remove Seed 1.6 Vision
01 — Verdict

Seed 1.6 Vision is our pick

Seed 1.6 Vision is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (42) and GLM-4.7 (41). It leads on price and 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 priceSeed 1.6 VisionSeed 1.6 Vision $0.386 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 · Seed 1.6 Vision 256,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsSeed 1.6 VisionGLM-4.7: Text · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text · Seed 1.6 Vision: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Publishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Seed 1.6 Vision
Price50%484967
Inputs & features30%353570
Context window20%323736
Overall100%41/10042/10061/100

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 Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Seed 1.6 Vision specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)Seed 1.6 VisionByteDance Seed
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.7143.8 (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$0.30$0.119 (best)
Output$2.20$2.90$1.19 (best)
Cached input$0.11—$0.024 (best)
Blended (3:1)$1.00$0.95$0.386 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateOver 32K: $0.178 / $2.37
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIMedian of 11 providersOfficial Volcengine Ark API
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens262,144 tokens (best)256,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)81,920 tokens32,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenApache 2.0Proprietary
API model IDglm-4.7—doubao-seed-1-6-vision-250815
API providers31 (best)122
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Jul 25, 2025Aug 15, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025——
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
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
  • Seed 1.6 Vision$3.56
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 or Seed 1.6 Vision?

Seed 1.6 Vision is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (42) and GLM-4.7 (41). It leads on price and 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, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 or Seed 1.6 Vision?

Seed 1.6 Vision is cheaper at $0.119 input / $1.19 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.386 per million tokens for Seed 1.6 Vision versus $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (2.5× as much) and $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (2.6× 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, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 has an ECI of 143.8 and Seed 1.6 Vision has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and Seed 1.6 Vision 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 Seed 1.6 Vision and 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920, Seed 1.6 Vision up to 32,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text; Seed 1.6 Vision accepts text and images. Seed 1.6 Vision handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Vision is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Seed 1.6 Vision came out Aug 15, 2025; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons