Devstral Medium vs GLM-4.5V vs GLM-4.7-FlashX
GLM-4.7-FlashX comes out ahead, 61 to 49 and 39 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Mistral AIDevstral Medium
39/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $2.00
- Context128K
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5V
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $1.80
- Context64K
- Our pickZ.ai (Zhipu)
GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
GLM-4.7-FlashX is our pick
GLM-4.7-FlashX is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against GLM-4.5V (49) and Devstral Medium (39). It leads on price and context window. GLM-4.5V wins on inputs & features. 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-4.7-FlashXGLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 · Devstral Medium $0.80 · GLM-4.5V $0.90 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-4.7-FlashXGLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 · Devstral Medium 128,000 · GLM-4.5V 64,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGLM-4.5VDevstral Medium: Text · GLM-4.5V: Text, Images, Video · GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-4.5V and GLM-4.7-FlashXPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Devstral Medium | GLM-4.5V | GLM-4.7-FlashX |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 54 | 52 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 12 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 39/100 | 49/100 | 61/100 |
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 | Devstral MediumMistral AI | GLM-4.5VZ.ai (Zhipu) | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.40 | $0.60 | $0.07 (best) |
| Output | $2.00 | $1.80 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.80 | $0.90 | $0.152 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Z.AI API | Official Z.AI API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 64,000 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 16,384 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Open |
| API model ID | devstral-medium-2507 | glm-4.5v | glm-4.7-flashx |
| API providers | 2 | 11 (best) | 8 |
| Released | Jul 10, 2025 | Aug 11, 2025 | Jan 19, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2025 | Apr 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.
- Devstral Medium$8.00
- GLM-4.5V$9.60
- GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Devstral Medium, GLM-4.5V or GLM-4.7-FlashX?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against GLM-4.5V (49) and Devstral Medium (39). It leads on price and context window. GLM-4.5V wins on inputs & features. 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, Devstral Medium, GLM-4.5V or GLM-4.7-FlashX?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Devstral Medium costs $0.40 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price); GLM-4.5V costs $0.60 input / $1.80 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.152 per million tokens for GLM-4.7-FlashX versus $0.80 for Devstral Medium (5.2× as much) and $0.90 for GLM-4.5V (5.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Devstral Medium has not been scored yet, GLM-4.5V has not been scored yet and GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Devstral Medium, GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.7-FlashX 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-4.7-FlashX has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 128,000 for Devstral Medium and 64,000 for GLM-4.5V. Maximum output per response: Devstral Medium up to 128,000, GLM-4.5V up to 16,384, GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Devstral Medium accepts text; GLM-4.5V accepts text, images and video; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text. GLM-4.5V handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.7-FlashX publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Devstral Medium is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.7-FlashX is the newest, released Jan 19, 2026. GLM-4.5V came out Aug 11, 2025; Devstral Medium came out Jul 10, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Devstral Medium May 2025, GLM-4.5V Apr 2025, GLM-4.7-FlashX 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.
