Four dominant themes in the discussion
| # | Theme | Key points & quotes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bench‑maxing vs real‑world performance | Many users note that the benchmarks look great but actual use falls short. • “The benchmarks are impressive, but then don’t perform as expected in actual use. There’s clearly some benchmaxxing going on.” – throwup238 • “The benchmarks of the open‑weights models are always more impressive than the performance.” – throwup238 |
| 2 | Cost & pricing competitiveness | GLM models are repeatedly highlighted as cheaper alternatives to frontier offerings. • “It’s roughly three times cheaper than GPT‑5.2‑codex.” – l5870uoo9y • “GLM‑5 is more expensive than GLM‑4.7 even when using sparse attention?” – algorithm314 (illustrating the price‑performance trade‑off) |
| 3 | Practical usability vs benchmark claims | Users discuss how GLM behaves in real coding tasks, often needing more instruction or struggling with tool‑calling. • “When left to its own devices, GLM‑4.7 frequently tries to build the world. It’s also less capable at figuring out stumbling blocks on its own without spiralling.” – monooso • “GLM‑4.7 is comparable to Sonnet, but requires a little more instruction and clarity to get things right.” – justinparus |
| 4 | Tooling, ecosystem, and open‑source advantage | The open‑source ecosystem (OpenCode, agentic IDEs, etc.) is praised for flexibility and integration. • “OpenCode and Letta are two notable examples, but there are surely more.” – evv • “GLM works wonderfully with Claude, just have to set some environment variables and you’re off to the races.” – hamdingers • “GLM‑5 can turn text or source materials directly into .docx, .pdf, and .xlsx files—PRDs, lesson plans, exams, spreadsheets, financial reports, run sheets, menus, and more.” – Alifatisk |
These four themes capture the core of the conversation: how benchmark hype compares to real use, the pricing battle, the day‑to‑day usability of GLM models, and the strength of the open‑source tooling ecosystem.