GLM-4.5-Flash vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
GLM-4.5-Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 45 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Flash
65/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context131K
NVIDIALlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.478 / $0.504
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
GLM-4.5-Flash is our pick
GLM-4.5-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (45). It leads on price and 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-4.5-FlashGLM-4.5-Flash Free · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct $0.485 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-4.5-FlashGLM-4.5-Flash 131,072 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.5-Flash: Text · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5-Flash | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 65 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 45/100 |
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-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | Free (best) | $0.478 |
| Output | Free (best) | $0.504 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | Free (best) | $0.485 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 98,304 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.5-flash | nvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-70b-instruct |
| API providers | 4 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Apr 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 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-FlashFree
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct$5.79
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5-Flash or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (45). It leads on price and 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, GLM-4.5-Flash or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
GLM-4.5-Flash is cheaper at Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct costs $0.478 input / $0.504 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Nvidia). GLM-4.5-Flash is listed as free.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-4.5-Flash has not been scored yet and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5-Flash and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both 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 70B Instruct. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5-Flash up to 98,304, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5-Flash accepts text; Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GLM-4.5-Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the newest, released Jul 28, 2025. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct came out Apr 15, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BThree-way comparison
- GLM-4.5-Flash vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BNVIDIA
- GLM-4.5-Flash vs Nova 2 ProAmazon
- GLM-4.5-Flash vs Laguna M.1Poolside
- GLM-4.5-Flash vs North Mini CodeCohere
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Qwen3-VL 30B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen)
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu)
