$ diff grok-4-7 glm-5-3-flash
Grok 4.7 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Values come from Grok 4.7 and GLM-5.3-Flash, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
xAIGrok 4.7
- context
- 500K
- weights
- —
- $/M in
- $2
- $/M out
- $6
- context
- 1.0M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.15
- $/M out
- $0.5
What actually differs
- Context window
- GLM-5.3-Flash takes 1.0M against 500K — 2.1× more room in a single request.
- Input price
- GLM-5.3-Flash at $0.15/M against $2/M — 13.3× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- GLM-5.3-Flash at $0.5/M against $6/M — 12.0× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Recency
- Grok 4.7 shipped 26 days after GLM-5.3-Flash (2026-09-21 vs 2026-08-26).
Full spec
| Attribute | Grok 4.7 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | xAI | Z.ai |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-08-26 |
| Context window | 500K | 1,048,576 (1M) |
| Pricing | $2/M input · $0.50/M cached input · $6/M output (prompts ≤200K); $4/M · $1/M · $12/M above 200K | $0.15/M input · $0.03/M cached input · $0.50/M output |
| License | not recorded | MIT |
| Availability | Grok API, Cursor, Grok Build, OpenRouter, Vercel, Cloudflare | Hugging Face (open weights), Z.ai API |