OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7

MiMo-V2.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

MiMo-V2.5 has the lower published input-plus-output rate and the larger context window. Z.ai: GLM 4.7 has more Credits provider routes and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

$0.4431/1MXiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 cheapest route

$2.26825/1MZ.ai: GLM 4.7 cheapest route

2458 msXiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 fastest measured p50 TTFT via xiaomi

812 msZ.ai: GLM 4.7 fastest measured p50 TTFT via mancer

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5Z.ai: GLM 4.7

Model idxiaomi/mimo-v2.5z-ai/glm-4.7

Publisher Xiaomi MiMo Z.AI

AI IQ IQ 109#76 IQ 105#88

Context1,050,000 tokens202,752 tokens

Credits provider routes56

Cheapest route$0.4431/1M$2.26825/1M

Cached input$0.01/1M to $0.104234/1M$0.0844/1M to $0.276453/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT2458 ms via xiaomi812 ms via mancer

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime range100.00%100.00%

Modes chat chat

Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 routes

Overview5 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources
ProvidersAll serving providers

Z.ai: GLM 4.7 routes

Overview6 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Z.ai: GLM 4.7 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.237 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 4.7 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.337 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 4.7 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash37 combined provider routes
Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.236 combined provider routes
Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.336 combined provider routes
Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash36 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 4.733 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 4.732 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="xiaomi/mimo-v2.5",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 or Z.ai: GLM 4.7?

MiMo-V2.5 has the lower published input-plus-output rate and the larger context window. Z.ai: GLM 4.7 has more Credits provider routes and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

Is Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.4431/1M for Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 and $2.26825/1M for Z.ai: GLM 4.7. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 2458 ms for Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 and 812 ms for Z.ai: GLM 4.7. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5 and Z.ai: GLM 4.7 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between xiaomi/mimo-v2.5 and z-ai/glm-4.7. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.