Pick GLM 4.7 for genuinely permissive open weights — an mit-licensed 358b mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions or strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on swe-bench verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. On a tight budget at scale, Llama 4 Scout is the value pick.
GLM 4.7 (Z.ai, China) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. GLM 4.7 is an MIT-licensed 358B open mixture-of-experts with strong 73.8% SWE-Bench Verified coding — but two generations behind GLM 5.2. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 49× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 200K (~304 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: GLM 4.7 is the newer model by about 9 months (released December 22, 2025), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
GLM 4.7
Llama 4 Scout
Provider
Z.ai (China)
Meta (US)
Released
December 22, 2025
April 2025
Context window
200K (~304 pages)
10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
73.8%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
15%
Who wins what
Genuinely permissive open weights — an MIT-licensed 358B mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions: GLM 4.7 — An MIT-licensed 358B open mixture-of-experts with strong 73.8% SWE-Bench Verified coding — but two generations behind GLM 5.2 — and it is the newer of the two.
Strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on SWE-Bench Verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch: GLM 4.7 — GLM 4.7 lists strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on SWE-Bench Verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
An unusually generous 128K maximum output, which suits bulk refactors and long generation: GLM 4.7 — GLM 4.7 lists an unusually generous 128K maximum output, which suits bulk refactors and long generation among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Largest advertised context (10M): Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window holds about 49× more than GLM 4.7's 200K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly: Llama 4 Scout — The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment: Llama 4 Scout — Llama 4 Scout lists self-hosted, data-private deployment among its strengths; GLM 4.7 does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Llama 4 Scout — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of GLM 4.7's $0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window is about 49× larger than GLM 4.7's 200K, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Llama 4 Scout — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts GLM 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Llama 4 Scout — Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is genuinely permissive open weights — an mit-licensed 358b mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions: GLM 4.7 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m): Llama 4 Scout — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Llama 4 Scout or GLM 4.7 — Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
GLM 4.7: where it fits
An MIT-licensed 358B open mixture-of-experts with strong 73.8% SWE-Bench Verified coding — but two generations behind GLM 5.2. Released December 22, 2025 by Z.ai, it is built for genuinely permissive open weights — an MIT-licensed 358B mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions, strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on SWE-Bench Verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch, an unusually generous 128K maximum output, which suits bulk refactors and long generation, and cheap long-running agent loops thanks to aggressive prompt caching.
Its trade-offs are real: two generations behind — GLM 5, 5.1 and 5.2 have all shipped since, and new builds should default to those, its Verified lead narrows sharply on harder evaluations like SWE-Bench Pro, and text-only with no vision, and self-hosting a 358B model is a serious hardware commitment. At $0.6 in / $2.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." GLM 4.7 (China) and Llama 4 Scout (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Llama 4 Scout is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Llama 4 Scout, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, GLM 4.7 leans toward genuinely permissive open weights — an mit-licensed 358b mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper — $0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 200K, about 49× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both GLM 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 4.7, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, GLM 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
GLM 4.7 — released December 22, 2025, about 9 months after Llama 4 Scout.
GLM 4.7 vs Llama 4 Scout
Z.ai · China | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick GLM 4.7 for genuinely permissive open weights — an mit-licensed 358b mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions or strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on swe-bench verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. On a tight budget at scale, Llama 4 Scout is the value pick.
GLM 4.7 (Z.ai, China) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. GLM 4.7 is an MIT-licensed 358B open mixture-of-experts with strong 73.8% SWE-Bench Verified coding — but two generations behind GLM 5.2. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 49× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 200K (~304 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: GLM 4.7 is the newer model by about 9 months (released December 22, 2025), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
GLM 4.7
Llama 4 Scout
Provider
Z.ai (China)
Meta (US)
Released
December 22, 2025
April 2025
Context window
200K (~304 pages)
10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
73.8%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
15%
Who wins what
Genuinely permissive open weights — an MIT-licensed 358B mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions
GLM 4.7
An MIT-licensed 358B open mixture-of-experts with strong 73.8% SWE-Bench Verified coding — but two generations behind GLM 5.2 — and it is the newer of the two.
Strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on SWE-Bench Verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch
GLM 4.7
GLM 4.7 lists strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on SWE-Bench Verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
An unusually generous 128K maximum output, which suits bulk refactors and long generation
GLM 4.7
GLM 4.7 lists an unusually generous 128K maximum output, which suits bulk refactors and long generation among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window holds about 49× more than GLM 4.7's 200K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
Llama 4 Scout
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
Llama 4 Scout lists self-hosted, data-private deployment among its strengths; GLM 4.7 does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of GLM 4.7's $0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 49× larger than GLM 4.7's 200K, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts GLM 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is genuinely permissive open weights — an mit-licensed 358b mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions
→ GLM 4.7
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Llama 4 Scout or GLM 4.7
Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
GLM 4.7: where it fits
An MIT-licensed 358B open mixture-of-experts with strong 73.8% SWE-Bench Verified coding — but two generations behind GLM 5.2. Released December 22, 2025 by Z.ai, it is built for genuinely permissive open weights — an MIT-licensed 358B mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions, strong agentic coding for the price — 73.8% on SWE-Bench Verified undercut most closed frontier models at launch, an unusually generous 128K maximum output, which suits bulk refactors and long generation, and cheap long-running agent loops thanks to aggressive prompt caching.
Its trade-offs are real: two generations behind — GLM 5, 5.1 and 5.2 have all shipped since, and new builds should default to those, its Verified lead narrows sharply on harder evaluations like SWE-Bench Pro, and text-only with no vision, and self-hosting a 358B model is a serious hardware commitment. At $0.6 in / $2.2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." GLM 4.7 (China) and Llama 4 Scout (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Llama 4 Scout is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both GLM 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Llama 4 Scout, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, GLM 4.7 leans toward genuinely permissive open weights — an mit-licensed 358b mixture-of-experts with no commercial restrictions while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper — $0.6/$2.2 per 1M tokens vs Open weight (self-host / free).
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 200K, about 49× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both GLM 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you GLM 4.7, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, GLM 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
GLM 4.7 — released December 22, 2025, about 9 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.