Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM-4.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.32/100
Margin
4.2pts
← winning
61.16/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-4.7 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 12 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Sonnet 5 only
18
GLM-4.7 only
12
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.32 to 61.16. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.9 against 45.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 80.4% to 41%.

Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for GLM-4.7. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-4.7
CategoryClaude Sonnet 5ΔGLM-4.7
AgenticClaude Sonnet 581.9Margin← 36.2GLM-4.745.7
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 557.4Margin← 5.6GLM-4.751.8
CodingClaude Sonnet 576.7Margin← 1.3GLM-4.775.4
MathClaude Sonnet 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-4.71.8
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 588.3MarginNo overlapGLM-4.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 5B · GLM-4.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 41%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 39.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 41%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.7%B 52%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 32.7
    BrowseComp: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 84.7%; GLM-4.7 scored 52%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.4%B 24.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 32.6
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 57.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 24.8%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 85.2%B 73.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 11.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 85.2%; GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 outputGLM-4.7$0 input / $0 outputGLM-4.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 5Not availableGLM-4.782 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 5Not availableGLM-4.71.10 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 51MGLM-4.7200KClaude Sonnet 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%41%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.7%52%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 57.4%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 81.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16071165Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 46.7%25.4%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 55.4%33.3%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1388—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 39.2%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.7%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 90.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 28.2%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 80.5%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —15.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.95%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 85.2%73.8%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 63.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 28.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 42.7%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 61.5%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.5%45.3%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.6%45.1%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
LiveCodeBenchSource —84.9%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.7%Not comparable
AA LiveCodeBenchSource —89.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
AA-LCRSource 70.7%64.0%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
CritPtSource 16.9%1.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
HLESource 57.4%24.8%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.2%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.4%33.7%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%85.9%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%25.1%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 15.3%-34.6%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.3%29.3%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 37.3%90.3%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GPQASource —85.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —84.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
AIME 2025Source —95.7%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —2.439%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —0.000%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
CharXivSource 88.3%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 77%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13141255Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GLM-4.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource —67.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.32 to 61.16. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 80.4% and 41%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.4 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 75.4. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.9 versus 45.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.