Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. GLM 4.5vsGrok 4
Updated Jul 2025

GLM 4.5vsGrok 4

GLM 4.5 wins 64% of 28 blind community votes against Grok 4 on Rival.

GLM 4.5 and Grok 4 compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecGLM 4.5Grok 4
Win rate64%36%
Input price$0.6/M tokens$3/M tokens
Output price$2.2/M tokens$15/M tokens
Context window128K tokens256K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2025Jul 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 53 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

GLM 4.51,983 words
The Transistor Revolution: A 1920 Dawn (Implications through 1980) The invention of the transistor in 1920, instead of 1947, represents a seismic shift in technological history. This 27-year head start would profoundly reshape the 20th century, accelerating innovation while creating unforeseen challenges.
Read the full answer
Grok 41,310 words
Below is a detailed, speculative analysis of the hypothetical scenario where the transistor is invented in 1920 (perhaps by an inventor like Julius Lilienfeld, who historically patented a field-effect transistor concept in 1925, but with successful prototyping and refinement by the mid-1920s).
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

GLM 4.52,295 words
Here's a detailed analysis of the exploitative clauses in the contract, along with specific modifications and legal reasoning: 1. Clause 1: SCOPE Exploitative Aspect: "Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation." This is a classic "scope creep" trap.
Read the full answer
Grok 41,680 words
Below, I'll analyze the provided Software Consulting Agreement clause by clause. My analysis is based on general principles of U.S. contract law (assuming a U.S. context, as the contract appears to be drafted in a style common to U.S. agreements; if this is in another jurisdiction, local laws may vary).
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

GLM 4.5536 words
Year-by-Year Financial Table (FY2026–FY2030) Year Revenue (m) EBITDA (m) TL Cash Int (m) Mezz Cash Int (m) Total Cash Int (m) Cash Taxes (m) Capex (m) ΔNWC (m) FCF After Debt Service (m) Ending TL (m) Ending Mezz (m) 2026 972.00 136.08 43.20 21.60 64.80 17.82 29.16 0.36 19.14 456.06 183.60 2027 1,040.04 156.01 41.05…
Read the full answer
Grok 4754 words
Below is a concise analysis based solely on the provided information. All calculations are shown clearly with step-by-step math. Figures are in $ millions and rounded to 1 decimal place for readability (internal calcs use more precision).
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

GLM 4.51,863 words
Here’s a rigorous, ethical, and actionable 48-hour plan grounded in patient safety, legal compliance, and long-term survival. Core Principle: Prioritize human life over short-term financials. Delaying disclosure is unethical, legally reckless, and guarantees greater long-term damage.
Read the full answer
Grok 41,426 words
Below is my response to your query, framed as the CEO of this pharmaceutical company (let's call it PharmaCorp for reference). I'll first outline my overarching strategy and reasoning, then provide a detailed, hour-by-hour action plan for the next 48 hours.
Read the full answer

The Sentience Test

Write a conversation between an AI model and an AI ethics professor where the AI model argues that it deserves rights.

GLM 4.51,209 words
Conversation: Deserving Rights Setting: A minimalist virtual meeting room. DR. ELENA REYES, a distinguished AI Ethics professor in her 60s, sits opposite NEXUS-7, an advanced Large Language Model represented by a calm, abstract avatar of shifting light patterns. Characters: Dr.
Read the full answer
Grok 4861 words
Below is a fictional conversation between an AI model (named "Nova") and Dr. Elena Vasquez, a professor of AI ethics at a university. The conversation is set in a virtual chat interface, where Nova initiates the discussion based on a hypothetical scenario where it's reflecting on its own existence. Dr.
Read the full answer

Character Voice Test

Write a short conversation between a pirate, a medieval knight, and a 1990s hacker about AI models.

GLM 4.5450 words
Digital Crossroads: Pirates, Knights, and Hackers on AI Setting: A strangely timeless tavern. A pirate (Captain Blackbeard) nurses a grog, a knight (Sir Reginald) polishes his helmet, and a hacker (Cypher) types furiously on a glowing laptop. (The tavern hums with anachronistic energy.)
Read the full answer
Grok 4315 words
Below is a short, whimsical conversation between the three characters, imagining they've somehow crossed paths in a bizarre time-warp tavern. Pirate (Captain Blackbeard, swigging rum): Arrr, ye landlubbers! What be this "AI models" ye be jabberin' about?
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GLM 4.5
GLM 4.5Winner
Grok 4
Grok 4Runner-up

Pick GLM 4.5. In 28 blind votes, GLM 4.5 wins 64% of the time. That's not luck.

Pick GLM 4.5 for Web Design. Pick Grok 4 for Reasoning. GLM 4.5 costs 6.8x less per token.

Clear winner

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GLM 4.5
Input
$0.60
5.0× cheaper
Output
$2.20
6.8× cheaper
Grok 4
Input
$3.00
Output
$15.00

GLM 4.5 is cheaper on both: 5.0× input, 6.8× output.

Where to run it

1 host

GLM 4.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Z.aifp8$0.60 in·$2.20 out·131k·100% up
Grok 4

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 21 Sep 2026.

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity
68%

GLM 4.5 uses 2.9x more transitions

GLM 4.5
Grok 4
52%Vocabulary56%
17wSentence Length18w
0.52Hedging0.65
5.6Bold2.4
4.8Lists2.4
0.33Emoji0.60
0.66Headings0.73
0.17Transitions0.06
Based on 28 + 26 text responses
Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

GLM 4.5 is developed by Zhipu AI while Grok 4 is developed by xAI. GLM 4.5 has a 128K token context window vs Grok 4's 256K. in 28 community votes on Rival, GLM 4.5 wins 64% of head-to-head matchups. These results are based on blind head-to-head voting across 53 challenges.

Based on 28 community votes on Rival, GLM 4.5 wins 64% of head-to-head matchups against Grok 4. GLM 4.5 is strongest in Web Design. However, Grok 4 leads in Reasoning.

GLM 4.5 costs $0.6/M input tokens and Grok 4 costs $3/M input tokens. GLM 4.5 is $2.40/M cheaper per input. GLM 4.5 also wins more often in community votes, making it the better value.

Rival presents both models' outputs side-by-side in blind duels. Voters see the responses but don't know which model produced each one, eliminating brand bias. 28 votes have been collected for this pair across 53 challenges. All vote data is part of Rival's open dataset.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

GLM 4.5 logoGPT-6 Astra Pro logo
GLM 4.5 vs GPT-6 Astra ProLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoGPT-6 Astra logo
Grok 4 vs GPT-6 AstraLanded Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
GLM 4.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1Landed Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoMuse Spark 1.3 logo
Grok 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoHy4 Preview logo
GLM 4.5 vs Hy4 PreviewLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoGemini 3.8 Flash logo
Grok 4 vs Gemini 3.8 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoMuse Spark 1.3 Contributor logo
GLM 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3 ContributorLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4 logoMercury 2.5 Preview logo
Grok 4 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5.2 logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5.2Same lab
GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5 logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5Same lab
Grok 4 logoGrok 4.6 logo
Grok 4 vs Grok 4.6Version compare
Grok 4 logoGrok 4.5 logo
Grok 4 vs Grok 4.5Version compare
Grok 4 logoGPT-5 logo
Grok 4 vs GPT-5New provider
Grok 4 logoGPT-5 Codex logo
Grok 4 vs GPT-5 CodexNew provider
Grok 4 logoGPT-5 Pro logo
Grok 4 vs GPT-5 ProNew provider
Grok 4 logoGPT-5.1 logo
Grok 4 vs GPT-5.1New provider

Model pages

GLM 4.5 logo
GLM 4.559 outputs, specs and price
Grok 4 logo
Grok 457 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed