GLM-4.5-Flash vs Vision Large vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B
Vision Large comes out ahead, 84 to 31 and 31 on our weighted score.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Flash
31/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context131K
- Our pick
VisparkVision Large
84/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
NVIDIALlama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B
31/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context128K
Vision Large is our pick
Vision Large is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against GLM-4.5-Flash (31) and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B (31). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BGLM-4.5-Flash Free · Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B Free per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Vision Large unpriced
- Longest contextVision LargeVision Large 1,000,000 · GLM-4.5-Flash 131,072 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsVision LargeGLM-4.5-Flash: Text · Vision Large: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B: Text
- Self-hostingLlama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5-Flash | Vision Large | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 100 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 24 | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 31/100 | 84/100 | 31/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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) | Vision LargeVispark | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | Free | — | Free |
| Output | Free | — | Free |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | Free | — | Free |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | — | Official Nvidia API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 98,304 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.5-flash | — | nvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-ultra-253b-v1 |
| API providers | 4 (best) | — | 1 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | May 15, 2024 | Apr 7, 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
- Vision Large—
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BFree
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5-Flash, Vision Large or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?
Vision Large is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against GLM-4.5-Flash (31) and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B (31). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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, Vision Large or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?
GLM-4.5-Flash is cheaper at Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B costs Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Nvidia API price). GLM-4.5-Flash is listed as free. Vision Large has no published per-token price.
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, Vision Large has not been scored yet and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5-Flash, Vision Large and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B 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?
Vision Large has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 131,072 for GLM-4.5-Flash and 128,000 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5-Flash up to 98,304, Vision Large up to 65,536, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5-Flash accepts text; Vision Large accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B accepts text. Vision Large handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GLM-4.5-Flash and Vision Large is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the newest, released Jul 28, 2025. Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B came out Apr 7, 2025; Vision Large came out May 15, 2024. 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.
