GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3 Coder Flash vs Seed 1.6 Vision
Seed 1.6 Vision comes out ahead, 63 to 50 and 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Air
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.10
- Context131K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 Coder Flash
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.50
- Context1M
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Vision
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.119 / $1.19
- Context256K
Seed 1.6 Vision is our pick
Seed 1.6 Vision is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Qwen3 Coder Flash (50) and GLM-4.5-Air (49). It leads on price and inputs & features. Qwen3 Coder Flash wins on context window. 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 priceSeed 1.6 VisionSeed 1.6 Vision $0.386 · GLM-4.5-Air $0.425 · Qwen3 Coder Flash $0.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 Coder FlashQwen3 Coder Flash 1,000,000 · Seed 1.6 Vision 256,000 · GLM-4.5-Air 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 VisionGLM-4.5-Air: Text · Qwen3 Coder Flash: Text · Seed 1.6 Vision: Text, Images
- Self-hostingGLM-4.5-AirPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5-Air | Qwen3 Coder Flash | Seed 1.6 Vision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 68 | 60 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 60 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 50/100 | 63/100 |
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 | GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu) | Qwen3 Coder FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | Seed 1.6 VisionByteDance Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.30 | $0.119 (best) |
| Output | $1.10 (best) | $1.50 | $1.19 |
| Cached input | $0.03 | — | $0.024 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.425 | $0.60 | $0.386 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.178 / $2.37 |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Alibaba API | Official Volcengine Ark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 256,000 tokens |
| Max output | 98,304 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 32,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.5-air | qwen3-coder-flash | doubao-seed-1-6-vision-250815 |
| API providers | 13 (best) | 10 | 2 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Jul 28, 2025 | Aug 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 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.
- GLM-4.5-Air$4.20
- Qwen3 Coder Flash$6.00
- Seed 1.6 Vision$3.56
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5-Air, Qwen3 Coder Flash or Seed 1.6 Vision?
Seed 1.6 Vision is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Qwen3 Coder Flash (50) and GLM-4.5-Air (49). It leads on price and inputs & features. Qwen3 Coder Flash wins on context window. 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, GLM-4.5-Air, Qwen3 Coder Flash or Seed 1.6 Vision?
Seed 1.6 Vision is cheaper at $0.119 input / $1.19 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). GLM-4.5-Air costs $0.20 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); Qwen3 Coder Flash costs $0.30 input / $1.50 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.386 per million tokens for Seed 1.6 Vision versus $0.425 for GLM-4.5-Air (1.1× as much) and $0.60 for Qwen3 Coder Flash (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.5-Air has not been scored yet, Qwen3 Coder Flash has not been scored yet and Seed 1.6 Vision has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5-Air, Qwen3 Coder Flash and Seed 1.6 Vision 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?
Qwen3 Coder Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Seed 1.6 Vision and 131,072 for GLM-4.5-Air. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5-Air up to 98,304, Qwen3 Coder Flash up to 65,536, Seed 1.6 Vision up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5-Air accepts text; Qwen3 Coder Flash accepts text; Seed 1.6 Vision accepts text and images. Seed 1.6 Vision handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.5-Air publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3 Coder Flash and Seed 1.6 Vision is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Seed 1.6 Vision is the newest, released Aug 15, 2025. GLM-4.5-Air came out Jul 28, 2025; Qwen3 Coder Flash came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.5-Air Apr 2025, Qwen3 Coder 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.
