ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-4.6V-Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Ministral 3 14B

Too close to call on our weighted score (GLM-4.6V-Flash 65, Ministral 3 14B 63, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.6V-Flash

    Released Dec 8, 2025

    65/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.161 / $0.559
    • Context128K
  2. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7-FlashX

    Released Jan 19, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.07 / $0.40
    • Context200K
  3. Mistral AI

    Ministral 3 14B

    Released Dec 2, 2025

    63/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.268 / $0.325
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (GLM-4.6V-Flash 65/100, Ministral 3 14B 63/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7-FlashX on price and Ministral 3 14B for long inputs. 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 · GLM-4.6V-Flash $0.261 · Ministral 3 14B $0.282 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMinistral 3 14BMinistral 3 14B 262,144 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 · GLM-4.6V-Flash 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGLM-4.6V-FlashGLM-4.6V-Flash: Text, Images, Video · GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Ministral 3 14B: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.6V-FlashGLM-4.7-FlashXMinistral 3 14B
Price50%788976
Inputs & features30%703560
Context window20%243237
Overall100%65/10061/10063/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GLM-4.6V-Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Ministral 3 14B specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.6V-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu)Ministral 3 14BMistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.161$0.07 (best)$0.268
Output$0.559$0.40$0.325 (best)
Cached input—$0.01—
Blended (3:1)$0.261$0.152 (best)$0.282
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersOfficial Z.AI APIMedian of 2 providers
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens200,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens131,072 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpenApache 2.0
API model IDglm-4.6v-flashglm-4.7-flashx—
API providers68 (best)2
ReleasedDec 8, 2025Jan 19, 2026Dec 2, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Apr 2025—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GLM-4.6V-Flash$2.73
  • GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
  • Ministral 3 14B$3.33
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.6V-Flash, GLM-4.7-FlashX or Ministral 3 14B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (GLM-4.6V-Flash 65/100, Ministral 3 14B 63/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7-FlashX on price and Ministral 3 14B for long inputs. 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-4.6V-Flash, GLM-4.7-FlashX or Ministral 3 14B?

GLM-4.7-FlashX is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). GLM-4.6V-Flash costs $0.161 input / $0.559 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Z.AI); Ministral 3 14B costs $0.268 input / $0.325 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). 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 $0.261 for GLM-4.6V-Flash (1.7× as much) and $0.282 for Ministral 3 14B (1.9× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.6V-Flash has not been scored yet, GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet and Ministral 3 14B has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.6V-Flash, GLM-4.7-FlashX and Ministral 3 14B 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?

Ministral 3 14B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX and 128,000 for GLM-4.6V-Flash. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.6V-Flash up to 32,768, GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Ministral 3 14B up to 262,144 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.6V-Flash accepts text, images and video; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Ministral 3 14B accepts text and images. GLM-4.6V-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.7-FlashX is the newest, released Jan 19, 2026. GLM-4.6V-Flash came out Dec 8, 2025; Ministral 3 14B came out Dec 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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.