ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

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

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

  1. OpenAI

    o4-mini-deep-research

    Released Jun 26, 2025

    37/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$1.80 / $7.20
    • Context200K
  2. Our pick

    Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

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

    Jamba Large

    Released Jul 3, 2025

    29/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$2.00 / $8.00
    • Context256K
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. o4-mini-deep-research wins on inputs & features. Jamba Large wins on context window. 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-researcho4-mini-deep-research: Text, Images · GLM-4.7: Text · Jamba Large: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.7 and Jamba LargePublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeighto4-mini-deep-researchGLM-4.7Jamba Large
Price50%254823
Inputs & features30%603535
Context window20%323236
Overall100%37/10041/10029/100

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.

o4-mini-deep-research vs GLM-4.7 vs Jamba Large specifications side by side
Specificationo4-mini-deep-researchOpenAIGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)Jamba LargeAI21 Labs
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—143.7—
ECI rank—#94 of 165—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—83.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—83.3%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—32.2%—
Price per million tokens
Input$1.80$0.60 (best)$2.00
Output$7.20$2.20 (best)$8.00
Cached input—$0.11—
Blended (3:1)$3.15$1.00 (best)$3.50
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial AI21 Labs API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens204,800 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Max output100,000 tokens131,072 tokens (best)4,096 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model ID—glm-4.7jamba-large
API providers131 (best)1
ReleasedJun 26, 2025Dec 22, 2025Jul 3, 2025
Knowledge cutoffMay 2024Apr 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.

  • o4-mini-deep-research$32.40
  • GLM-4.7$10.40
  • Jamba Large$36.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

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

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. o4-mini-deep-research wins on inputs & features. Jamba Large wins on context window. 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, o4-mini-deep-research, GLM-4.7 or Jamba Large?

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. o4-mini-deep-research has not been scored yet, GLM-4.7 has an ECI of 143.7 and Jamba Large has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for o4-mini-deep-research, GLM-4.7 and Jamba Large 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: o4-mini-deep-research up to 100,000, GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, Jamba Large up to 4,096 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

o4-mini-deep-research accepts text and images; GLM-4.7 accepts text; Jamba Large accepts text. 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: o4-mini-deep-research May 2024, 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.