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
  • Default Index
  • 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 4.5vsSolar Pro 4
Updated Aug 2026

GLM 4.5vsSolar Pro 4

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper than GLM 4.5 at $0.09/M vs $0.6/M input tokens.

GLM 4.5 and Solar Pro 4 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecGLM 4.5Solar Pro 4
Input price$0.6/M tokens$0.09/M tokens
Output price$2.2/M tokens$0.36/M tokens
Context window128K tokens524K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2025Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 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
Solar Pro 41,638 words
The Premise: The 1920 Solid-State Breakthrough For this scenario to function, we must assume a functional point-contact or junction transistor is demonstrated in 1920 (perhaps by Lilienfeld or an early Bell Labs precursor), and crucially, that methods for purifying semiconductor materials (germanium/silicon) are solved…
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
Solar Pro 41,851 words
As CEO, my overriding duty is to balance patient safety, legal/regulatory compliance, fiduciary responsibility, and long-term corporate survival. A 1-in-8,000 risk of liver failure is rare but severe, potentially fatal, and materially unexpected relative to the current label.
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
Solar Pro 41,382 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and not an attorney. The following analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract laws vary significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., state, country).
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

GLM 4.5847 words
Failure Modes, Race Conditions, and Scaling Bottlenecks 1. WebSocket Server Failure Issue: If a Node.js server fails, all connected clients lose real-time updates. Reconnections may route users to different servers, causing temporary data inconsistency.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,598 words
This architecture contains several fundamental mismatches between real-time collaborative editing requirements and the chosen patterns. Below is a systematic breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, each with a targeted solution and explicit trade-offs.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

GLM 4.5668 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (Distributed Systems/APIs Background) Think of an LLM as a massively parallel "routing engine" for language, where attention mechanisms act like dynamic load balancers. Instead of routing network packets, it routes contextual relationships across tokens in a sequence.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,062 words
The Experienced Software Engineer Think of the model not as a reasoning engine, but as a highly compressed, non-deterministic function approximator that maps a sequence of input tokens to a probability distribution over the next token.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

GLM 4.5871 words
Based on the pitch deck summary, here are the 3 weakest claims, with explanations and concrete suggestions for strengthening them: Weak Claim 1: Slide 3 - "94% Accuracy" Why it's weak: Extraordinarily high accuracy claims in BCI, especially non-invasive EEG for complex text generation, lack context and seem implausible…
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,009 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, along with an analysis of why they undermine credibility and specific recommendations for improvement. The Technical Performance Claim Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy...
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GLM 4.5
GLM 4.5
Solar Pro 4
Solar Pro 4

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Solar Pro 4 costs 6.1x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GLM 4.5
Input
$0.60
Output
$2.20
Solar Pro 4
Input
$0.09
6.7× cheaper
Output
$0.36
6.1× cheaper

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper on both: 6.7× input, 6.1× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

GLM 4.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Z.aifp8$0.60 in·$2.20 out·131k·100% up
Solar Pro 41 host
HostInOutContextUptime
UUpstage$0.09 in·$0.36 out·524k·99.7% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

GLM 4.5 is developed by Zhipu AI while Solar Pro 4 is developed by Upstage. GLM 4.5 has a 128K token context window vs Solar Pro 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. GLM 4.5 and Solar Pro 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

GLM 4.5 costs $0.6/M input tokens and Solar Pro 4 costs $0.09/M input tokens. Solar Pro 4 is $0.51/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GLM 4.5 and Solar Pro 4 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

GLM 4.5 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
GLM 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoHy3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
GLM 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GLM 4.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 4.5 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
GLM 4.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5.3Same lab
GLM 4.5 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 4.5 vs GLM 5.3 FlashSame lab
Solar Pro 4 logoSolar Pro 3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Solar Pro 3Same lab
Solar Pro 4 logoOx Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Ox AlphaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoPolaris Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Polaris AlphaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoPony Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Pony AlphaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoQwen Plus 0728 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Qwen Plus 0728Same size
Solar Pro 4 logoQwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)Same size

Model pages

GLM 4.5 logo
GLM 4.559 outputs, specs and price
Solar Pro 4 logo
Solar Pro 414 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
  • Default Index
  • 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