Model Comparison
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
vs. GLM-4.7 (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Z AI
Recommended Pick
Z GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) 14 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
43.9 reasoning / $0.45/1M
Lowest Price
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
$0.27/1M input price
Best Reasoning
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning)
68.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning)
36.3 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) is 2.2x cheaper on input tokens than GLM-4.7 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) leads V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) by 24.7 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) leads V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) by 4.4 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) wins 14 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning)
Z AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | De V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Z GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.27/1M | $0.60/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.00/1M | $2.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45/1M | $1.00/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Z AI |
| Release Date | Sep 22, 2025 | Dec 22, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 77.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 863ms |
| Latency | — | 26623ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 70.8 |
| Reasoning Score | 43.9 | 68.6 |
| Intelligence | 28.5 | 42.1 |
| Coding | 31.9 | 36.3 |
| Math | 53.7 | 95.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.1% | 85.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.6% | 85.6% |
| HLE | 8.4% | 25.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 52.9% | 89.4% |
| AIME 2025 | 53.7% | 95.0% |
| SciCode | 32.1% | 45.1% |
| LCR | 43.3% | 64.0% |
| IFBench | 41.2% | 67.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 37.1% | 95.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.8% | 31.8% |
Key Takeaways
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.27/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 68.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) reaches a 36.3 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
