DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GLM-5.3
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 comes out ahead, 68 to 64 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
68/100- ECI155.4
- Price$0.66 / $1.98
- Context1M
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.3
64/100- ECI155.8
- Price$1.40 / $4.40
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is our pick
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against GLM-5.3 (64). It leads on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGLM-5.3Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3 155.8 · DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 155.4
- Lowest priceDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 $0.99 · GLM-5.3 $2.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1,000,000 · GLM-5.3 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: Text · GLM-5.3: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 85 | 85 |
| Price | 25% | 50 | 34 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 45 | 45 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 68/100 | 64/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek | GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 155.4 | 155.8 (best) |
| ECI rank | #26 of 148 | #24 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 91.7% (best) | 90.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 64.6% | 68.8% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 98.6% (best) | 91.1% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 52.9% (best) | 41.0% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.66 (best) | $1.40 |
| Output | $1.98 (best) | $4.40 |
| Cached input | $0.022 (best) | $0.26 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.99 (best) | $2.15 |
| 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 | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Open |
| API model ID | deepseek-v4-pro | glm-5.3 |
| API providers | 37 | 62 (best) |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Aug 14, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
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 Pro 0813$10.56
- GLM-5.3$22.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3?
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against GLM-5.3 (64). It leads on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3?
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.98 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 input / $4.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.99 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 versus $2.15 for GLM-5.3 (2.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
GLM-5.3 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3 155.8 (#24 of 148) and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 155.4 (#26 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (153.7–158.3 vs 153.7–157.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 91.7%, GLM-5.3 90.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — GLM-5.3 68.8%, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 64.6%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 98.6%, GLM-5.3 91.1%; SimpleQA Verified — DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 52.9%, GLM-5.3 41.0%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and GLM-5.3 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-5.3 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 Pro 0813 and GLM-5.3 share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 up to 384,000, GLM-5.3 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 accepts text; GLM-5.3 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
GLM-5.3 is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 came out Aug 12, 2026.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemini 3.6 FlashThree-way comparison
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle · ECI 154.3
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Muse Spark 1.2Meta · ECI 155.0
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.5
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.2Meta · ECI 155.0
- GLM-5.3 vs Grok 4.6xAI · ECI 156.6
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max 0902Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 155.2
