whichLlmmodel
Back to Dashboard

OpenAIGPT-5.4 nanoVSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-4.7

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

We recommend GLM-4.7 for complex multi-file code and clearly defined tasks, or the 2.2x cheaper GPT-5.4 nano if your budget requires optimizing costs for very high-volume pipelines. While GLM-4.7 offers a clear reasoning advantage, it carries a moderate price premium. Choose GLM-4.7 for multi-file code and clearly defined tasks, or GPT-5.4 nano to save on API costs for simple scripts.
WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
  • Coding Evaluation: GPT-5.4 nano was evaluated on SWE-bench Pro (scoring 52.4%), while GLM-4.7 was evaluated on SWE-bench Verified (scoring 73.8%).
  • Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%, while GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%.
  • Cost Efficiency: GPT-5.4 nano pricing ($0.2/M input, $1.25/M output) is 2.2x cheaper than GLM-4.7 ($0.6/M input, $2.2/M output).
  • Was this recommendation helpful?
    Model Specs

    GPT-5.4 nano

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-pro)
    52.4%

    complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
    82.8%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)2.2x cheaper
    $0.46Input: $0.20 | Output: $1.25
    Context WindowLarger
    400k tokens
    Model Specs

    GLM-4.7

    Open SourceAPI Available

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-verified)
    73.8%

    multi-file code and clearly defined tasks

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+2.9%)
    85.7%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)
    $1.00Input: $0.60 | Output: $2.20
    Context Window
    202.75k tokens

    Frequently Asked Questions about GPT-5.4 nano vs GLM-4.7

    GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper than GLM-4.7. GPT-5.4 nano has a blended cost of $0.46/1M tokens, which is about 2.2x cheaper than GLM-4.7 at $1.00/1M tokens.

    For coding tasks, GPT-5.4 nano scores 52.4% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning), while GLM-4.7 scores 73.8% on swe-bench-verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks).

    Do you want to find a model for your constraints?

    Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.

    Open Model Finder