ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs Qwen3 Max vs Kimi K2 Thinking

Too close to call on our weighted score (Kimi K2 Thinking 58, GLM-4.7 56, Qwen3 Max 50). 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. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 Max

    Released Sep 23, 2025

    50/100
    • ECI142.4
    • Price$1.20 / $6.00
    • Context262K
  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 2 points (Kimi K2 Thinking 58/100, GLM-4.7 56/100, Qwen3 Max 50/100), 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 · Qwen3 Max 142.4
  • Lowest priceGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Kimi K2 Thinking $1.07 · Qwen3 Max $2.40 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3 Max and Kimi K2 ThinkingQwen3 Max 262,144 · Kimi K2 Thinking 262,144 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7: Text · Qwen3 Max: Text · Kimi K2 Thinking: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and Kimi K2 ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7Qwen3 MaxKimi K2 Thinking
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%706873
Price25%503248
Inputs & features15%352535
Context window10%323737
Overall100%56/10050/10058/100
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 Qwen3 Max vs Kimi K2 Thinking specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Qwen3 MaxAlibaba (Qwen)Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.5142.4146.0 (best)
ECI rank#84 of 148#91 of 148#72 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3%72.6%84.2% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—19.0%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3% (best)73.3%83.1%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2%48.8% (best)—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60 (best)$1.20$0.60 (best)
Output$2.20 (best)$6.00$2.50
Cached input$0.11——
Blended (3:1)$1.00 (best)$2.40$1.07
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Alibaba APIMedian of 10 providers
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens262,144 tokens (best)262,144 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens65,536 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model IDglm-4.7qwen3-max—
API providers20 (best)1610
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Sep 23, 2025Nov 6, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Apr 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
  • Qwen3 Max$24.00
  • Kimi K2 Thinking$11.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7, Qwen3 Max or Kimi K2 Thinking?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Kimi K2 Thinking 58/100, GLM-4.7 56/100, Qwen3 Max 50/100), 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, Qwen3 Max 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); Qwen3 Max costs $1.20 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $2.40 for Qwen3 Max (2.4× 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 Qwen3 Max 142.4 (#91 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%, Qwen3 Max 72.6%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-4.7 83.3%, Kimi K2 Thinking 83.1%, Qwen3 Max 73.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7, Qwen3 Max 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?

Qwen3 Max and Kimi K2 Thinking have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Qwen3 Max up to 65,536, Kimi K2 Thinking up to 262,144 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; Qwen3 Max accepts text; Kimi K2 Thinking accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.7 and Kimi K2 Thinking publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3 Max is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Kimi K2 Thinking came out Nov 6, 2025; Qwen3 Max came out Sep 23, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, Qwen3 Max Apr 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.