Llama 4 (Meta)
Our pickGLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI)
Tier-list head-to-head. GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) takes the A-tier slot — here's the breakdown.
Spec sheet
| Llama 4 (Meta) | GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Tier | B-tier | A-tierwin |
| Overall score | 7.9 / 10 | 8.0 / 10win |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Starting price | $0 | $0 |
| Best for | Developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context … | Teams that need genuine MIT-licensed frontier open weights with no commercial strings. |
| Last reviewed | 2026-04-13 | 2026-04-17 |
Head-to-head
Rated 1-10 on the same rubric across all 130 tools we cover.
Vibe check
How each tool actually sounds when you talk to it.
“The open-weight workhorse”
“The Z.ai research model”
What you'll pay
Look past the headline number -- entry-tier limits drive most cost surprises.
Free tier available
Free tier available
Llama 4 Maverick (17B/400B MoE) vs GLM-5.1 (744B MoE / 40B active)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 (Meta) | GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 80.5% | 81.2% |
| GPQA Diamond | 69.8% | 74.5% |
| HumanEval | 88% | 89.1% |
The decision
Use-case anchors and category strengths, side by side.
Developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (Scout), or multimodal (Maverick). Safe default choice given the ecosystem.
Visit Llama 4 (Meta)Teams that need genuine MIT-licensed frontier open weights with no commercial strings. Especially strong for agentic workflows and vision (GLM-4.6V).
Visit GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI)Bottom line
Llama 4 (Meta) (A-tier, 7.9/10) and GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) (B-tier, 8.0/10) are within margin-of-error of each other on overall score. There's no decisive winner -- the right pick comes down to how you'll actually use the tool, not which scored higher in the abstract. We rate them on the same rubric (ease of use, output quality, value, features), and on this pair the rubric is calling it a draw.
Pricing-wise, both tools have a free tier (Llama 4 (Meta) starts $0, GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) starts $0), so you can test either without committing. Compare what each free tier actually unlocks -- usage caps, model access, and feature gates differ a lot more than the headline price suggests, especially as both vendors have tightened limits in 2026.
By use case: pick Llama 4 (Meta) when developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (scout), or multimodal (maverick). Pick GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) when teams that need genuine mit-licensed frontier open weights with no commercial strings. The two tools aren't fighting for the same person -- they're aiming at adjacent jobs that occasionally overlap. If you're squarely in GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI)'s lane, the tier-list ranking and the use-case fit point the same direction; if you're in Llama 4 (Meta)'s lane, the score gap matters less than the fit.
Bottom line: this pair is a coin flip on raw scores. Choose by use-case fit, free-tier availability, and which one you can actually try without committing. Re-evaluate in 60-90 days -- both vendors are shipping fast in 2026.
Keep digging
Full Llama 4 (Meta) review
Tier B · 7.9/10
Full GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) review
Tier A · 8.0/10
Llama 4 (Meta) alternatives
Other tools in this lane
GLM / Z.ai (Zhipu AI) alternatives
Other tools in this lane
Built from our daily AI-tool sweep, last touched April 17, 2026. Honest tier-list reviews — no affiliate-link pieces disguised as advice. See the rubric or how we review.