# GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash (slim)

> GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) to GLM-4.5-Air's 59.1 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-5-air-vs-glm-4-7-flash.md (~5,950 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-5-air-vs-glm-4-7-flash.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-5-air-vs-glm-4-7-flash
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-21
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against GLM-4.5-Air's 59.1 (C), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. GLM-4.5-Air leads on risk and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- GLM-4.5-Air: C 59.1, rank #62 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/glm-4-5-air.min.md
- GLM-4.7-Flash: B 63, rank #26 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/glm-4-7-flash.min.md
- GLM-4.5-Air, good for Agents with two to four datacentre GPUs, or a provider account, who want a permissively licensed English and Chinese tool-calling model with wide runtime support. Ahead on Risk, 65 against 55; Documentation and upkeep, 38 against 28.
- GLM-4.7-Flash, good for Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime Ahead on Capability, 59 against 50; Reach, 80 against 65.

| Category | GLM-4.5-Air | GLM-4.7-Flash |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 50 | 59 |
| Reach (25%) | 65 | 80 |
| Risk (20%) | 65 | 55 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 85 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 38 | 28 |

| Fact (where they differ) | GLM-4.5-Air | GLM-4.7-Flash |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Last release | 2025-08-11 | 2026-01-29 |