Apertus 8B vs GLM-4.5-Flash vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B
Too close to call on our weighted score (GLM-4.5-Flash 65, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B 65, Apertus 8B 56). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Flash
65/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context131K
NVIDIALlama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B
65/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context128K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (GLM-4.5-Flash 65/100, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B 65/100, Apertus 8B 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.5-Flash on price and GLM-4.5-Flash for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGLM-4.5-Flash and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BGLM-4.5-Flash Free · Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B Free · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-4.5-FlashGLM-4.5-Flash 131,072 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B 128,000 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 8B: Text · GLM-4.5-Flash: Text · Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 8B and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 8B | GLM-4.5-Flash | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 65/100 | 65/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Apertus 8BSwiss AI | GLM-4.5-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | Free (best) | Free (best) |
| Output | $0.20 | Free (best) | Free (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 | Free (best) | Free (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Z.AI API | Official Nvidia API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 98,304 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | glm-4.5-flash | nvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-ultra-253b-v1 |
| API providers | 1 | 4 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Jul 28, 2025 | Apr 7, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | Apr 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Apertus 8B$1.40
- GLM-4.5-FlashFree
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BFree
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 8B, GLM-4.5-Flash or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (GLM-4.5-Flash 65/100, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B 65/100, Apertus 8B 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.5-Flash on price and GLM-4.5-Flash for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Apertus 8B, GLM-4.5-Flash or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?
GLM-4.5-Flash is cheaper at Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B costs Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Nvidia API price); Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). GLM-4.5-Flash is listed as free.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Apertus 8B has not been scored yet, GLM-4.5-Flash has not been scored yet and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 8B, GLM-4.5-Flash and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.5-Flash has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 128,000 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B and 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 8B up to 8,192, GLM-4.5-Flash up to 98,304, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 8B accepts text; GLM-4.5-Flash accepts text; Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 8B and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; GLM-4.5-Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 8B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. GLM-4.5-Flash came out Jul 28, 2025; Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B came out Apr 7, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 2025, GLM-4.5-Flash Apr 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
