ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-4.6V-Flash vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Step 3.5 Flash

Too close to call on our weighted score (GLM-4.6V-Flash 65, Step 3.5 Flash 62, 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. StepFun

    Step 3.5 Flash

    Released Jan 29, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.10 / $0.30
    • Context256K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (GLM-4.6V-Flash 65/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash on price and Step 3.5 Flash 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 priceStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 · GLM-4.6V-Flash $0.261 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 256,000 · 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 · Step 3.5 Flash: Text
  • 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-FlashXStep 3.5 Flash
Price50%788989
Inputs & features30%703535
Context window20%243236
Overall100%65/10061/10062/100

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 Step 3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.6V-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu)Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.161$0.07 (best)$0.10
Output$0.559$0.40$0.30 (best)
Cached input—$0.01 (best)$0.02
Blended (3:1)$0.261$0.152$0.15 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial StepFun (Global) API
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens200,000 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens131,072 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYeslow · high
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpen
API model IDglm-4.6v-flashglm-4.7-flashxstep-3.5-flash
API providers68 (best)8 (best)
ReleasedDec 8, 2025Jan 19, 2026Jan 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Apr 2025Jan 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
  • Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.6V-Flash, GLM-4.7-FlashX or Step 3.5 Flash?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (GLM-4.6V-Flash 65/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash on price and Step 3.5 Flash 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 Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash versus $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1× as much) and $0.261 for GLM-4.6V-Flash (1.7× 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 Step 3.5 Flash 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 Step 3.5 Flash 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?

Step 3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 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, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.6V-Flash accepts text, images and video; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text. GLM-4.6V-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026; GLM-4.6V-Flash came out Dec 8, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025, Step 3.5 Flash Jan 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.