GLM-4.5-Flash vs Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct vs Qwen-VL OCR
GLM-4.5-Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 62 and 36 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Flash
65/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context131K
NVIDIANemotron Mini 4B Instruct
62/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context128K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-VL OCR
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.72 / $0.72
- Context34K
GLM-4.5-Flash is our pick
GLM-4.5-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct (62) and Qwen-VL OCR (36). It leads 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-4.5-Flash and Nemotron Mini 4B InstructGLM-4.5-Flash Free · Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct Free · Qwen-VL OCR $0.72 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-4.5-FlashGLM-4.5-Flash 131,072 · Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct 128,000 · Qwen-VL OCR 34,096 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen-VL OCRGLM-4.5-Flash: Text · Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct: Text · Qwen-VL OCR: Text, Images
- Self-hostingNemotron Mini 4B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5-Flash | Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct | Qwen-VL OCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 | 57 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 1 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 62/100 | 36/100 |
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) | Nemotron Mini 4B InstructNVIDIA | Qwen-VL OCRAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | Free (best) | Free (best) | $0.72 |
| Output | Free (best) | Free (best) | $0.72 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | Free (best) | Free (best) | $0.72 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Nvidia API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 34,096 tokens |
| Max output | 98,304 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 4,096 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 | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.5-flash | nvidia/nemotron-mini-4b-instruct | qwen-vl-ocr |
| API providers | 4 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Aug 21, 2024 | Oct 28, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | — | Apr 2024 |
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
- Nemotron Mini 4B InstructFree
- Qwen-VL OCR$8.64
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5-Flash, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct or Qwen-VL OCR?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct (62) and Qwen-VL OCR (36). It leads 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, GLM-4.5-Flash, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct or Qwen-VL OCR?
GLM-4.5-Flash is cheaper at Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct costs Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Nvidia API price); Qwen-VL OCR costs $0.72 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). GLM-4.5-Flash is listed as free.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.5-Flash has not been scored yet, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct has not been scored yet and Qwen-VL OCR has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5-Flash, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct and Qwen-VL OCR yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-VL OCR does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.5-Flash has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 128,000 for Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct and 34,096 for Qwen-VL OCR. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5-Flash up to 98,304, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct up to 8,192, Qwen-VL OCR up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5-Flash accepts text; Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct accepts text; Qwen-VL OCR accepts text and images. Qwen-VL OCR handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GLM-4.5-Flash and Qwen-VL OCR is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the newest, released Jul 28, 2025. Qwen-VL OCR came out Oct 28, 2024; Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct came out Aug 21, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.5-Flash Apr 2025, Qwen-VL OCR Apr 2024.
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.
