GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) vs HyperNova 60B 2605
Which is better for the money: GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) by Z AI or HyperNova 60B 2605 by Multiverse Computing? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-07-17.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) scores 15.9 points higher (33.7 vs 17.8) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($603 vs $35.0; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) when you need intelligence above 17.8, and HyperNova 60B 2605 when 17.8 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) | HyperNova 60B 2605 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 17.8 | −47.2% HyperNova 60B 2605 is 47.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $603.03 | $35.05 | −94.2% HyperNova 60B 2605 is 94.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 24.15s | 8.32s | −65.5% HyperNova 60B 2605 is 65.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.60 / $2.20 | $0.04 / $0.14 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
HyperNova 60B 2605 vs GLM-4.7 (Reasoning): 47.2% less intelligence, 94.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 65.5% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-4.7 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Grok 4.5 (high) scores 53.80 for $602.
- HyperNova 60B 2605 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.5 scores 37.20 for $25.2.
GLM-4.7 (Reasoning)HyperNova 60B 2605Today's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/glm-4-7/hypernova-60b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-4-7/hypernova-60b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill