DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Too close to call on our weighted score (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 79, GLM-5.3-Flash 79). The right pick depends on what you value most.
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
79/100- ECI158.8
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context1M
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.3-Flash
79/100- ECI153.2
- Price$0.15 / $0.50
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 79/100, GLM-5.3-Flash 79/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for raw capability and GLM-5.3-Flash on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 · GLM-5.3-Flash 153.2
- Lowest priceGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-Flash $0.237 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · GLM-5.3-Flash 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGLM-5.3-FlashDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images · GLM-5.3-Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 87 | 80 |
| Price | 25% | 74 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 70 | 90 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 79/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 158.8 (best) | 153.2 |
| ECI rank | #19 of 165 (best) | #48 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 93.2% (best) | 90.2% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 71.2% (best) | 55.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 99.4% (best) | 93.9% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 42.5% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.15 | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.60 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.003 (best) | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.263 | $0.237 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official DeepSeek API | Official Z.AI API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 384,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Open |
| API model ID | deepseek-flash | glm-5.3-flash |
| API providers | 40 | 80 (best) |
| Released | Oct 17, 2026 | Aug 26, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
- GLM-5.3-Flash$2.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or GLM-5.3-Flash?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 79/100, GLM-5.3-Flash 79/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for raw capability and GLM-5.3-Flash on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.237 per million tokens for GLM-5.3-Flash versus $0.263 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165) and GLM-5.3-Flash 153.2 (#48 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (156.7–162.2 vs 150.9–155.4), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%, GLM-5.3-Flash 90.2%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 71.2%, GLM-5.3-Flash 55.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, GLM-5.3-Flash 93.9%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000, GLM-5.3-Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images; GLM-5.3-Flash accepts text, images, PDFs and video. GLM-5.3-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. GLM-5.3-Flash came out Aug 26, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Claude Haiku 5.5Three-way comparison
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic · ECI 160.4
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.8
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle · ECI 158.2
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731DeepSeek · ECI 154.9
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.8
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 151.8
