ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2 Instruct vs GLM-4.7

Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Haiku 4.5 57, GLM-4.7 55, Kimi K2 Instruct 50). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI142.2
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
  2. Moonshot AI

    Kimi K2 Instruct

    Released Jul 11, 2025

    50/100
    • ECI139.9
    • Price$0.57 / $2.30
    • Context131K
  3. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Claude Haiku 4.5 57/100, GLM-4.7 55/100, Kimi K2 Instruct 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGLM-4.7Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 · Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 · Kimi K2 Instruct 139.9
  • Lowest priceGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 $1.00 · Kimi K2 Instruct $1.00 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGLM-4.7GLM-4.7 204,800 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · Kimi K2 Instruct 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Kimi K2 Instruct: Text · GLM-4.7: Text
  • Self-hostingKimi K2 Instruct and GLM-4.7Publishes downloadable weights (Modified MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 4.5Kimi K2 InstructGLM-4.7
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%676469
Price25%344848
Inputs & features15%802535
Context window10%322532
Overall100%57/10050/10055/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2 Instruct vs GLM-4.7 specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 4.5AnthropicKimi K2 InstructMoonshot AIGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)142.2139.9143.7 (best)
ECI rank#102 of 165#112 of 165#94 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions71.2%—83.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics66.7%—83.3% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions13.2%—32.2% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$1.00$0.57 (best)$0.60
Output$5.00$2.30$2.20 (best)
Cached input$0.10 (best)—$0.11
Blended (3:1)$2.00$1.00$1.00 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIMedian of 11 providersOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens131,072 tokens204,800 tokens (best)
Max output64,000 tokens32,768 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenModified MITOpen
API model IDclaude-haiku-4-5—glm-4.7
API providers48 (best)1131
ReleasedOct 15, 2025Jul 11, 2025Dec 22, 2025
Knowledge cutoffFeb 28, 2025—Apr 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.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
  • Kimi K2 Instruct$10.30
  • GLM-4.7$10.40
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Haiku 4.5, Kimi K2 Instruct or GLM-4.7?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Claude Haiku 4.5 57/100, GLM-4.7 55/100, Kimi K2 Instruct 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 4.5, Kimi K2 Instruct or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Kimi K2 Instruct costs $0.57 input / $2.30 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers); 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 $1.00 per million tokens for GLM-4.7 versus $1.00 for Kimi K2 Instruct (1× as much) and $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-4.7 143.7 (#94 of 165), Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 (#102 of 165) and Kimi K2 Instruct 139.9 (#112 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.4–145.8 vs 139.4–143.9), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 4.5, Kimi K2 Instruct and GLM-4.7 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-4.7 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?

GLM-4.7 has the largest context window at 204,800 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5 and 131,072 for Kimi K2 Instruct. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000, Kimi K2 Instruct up to 32,768, GLM-4.7 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Kimi K2 Instruct accepts text; GLM-4.7 accepts text. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Kimi K2 Instruct and GLM-4.7 publishes its weights (Modified MIT) and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7 is the newest, released Dec 22, 2025. Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025; Kimi K2 Instruct came out Jul 11, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 4.5 Feb 28, 2025, 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.