# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling (slim)

> Inkling scores 64.2 (B) to GLM-4.7-Flash's 63 (B) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-inkling.md (~5,800 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-inkling.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-inkling
- 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)

Inkling scores 64.2 (B) on agent readiness against GLM-4.7-Flash's 63 (B), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. GLM-4.7-Flash leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- GLM-4.7-Flash: B 63, rank #26 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/glm-4-7-flash.min.md
- Inkling: B 64.2, rank #20 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/inkling.min.md
- 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 Reach, 80 against 50.
- Inkling, good for Agents calling a hosted open multimodal model with audio input, or teams with a multi-GPU datacentre node who want to run it themselves. Ahead on Risk, 70 against 55; Documentation and upkeep, 82 against 28.

| Category | GLM-4.7-Flash | Inkling |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | 59 | 60 |
| Reach (25%) | 80 | 50 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 70 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 85 | 85 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 28 | 82 |

| Fact (where they differ) | GLM-4.7-Flash | Inkling |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | Thinking Machines Lab |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-01-29 | 2026-07-23 |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | 3/5 (4) |