ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.6V-Flash vs Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

Grok 4.1 Fast comes out ahead, 66 to 63 and 42 on our weighted score, though GLM-4.6V-Flash is 5% cheaper per token.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.6V-Flash

    Released Dec 8, 2025

    63/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.161 / $0.559
    • Context128K
  2. Our pick

    xAI

    Grok 4.1 Fast

    Released Nov 19, 2025

    66/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $0.50
    • Context2M
  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    42/100
    • ECI143.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.90
    • Context262K
01 — Verdict

Grok 4.1 Fast is our pick

Grok 4.1 Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against GLM-4.6V-Flash (63) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (42). It leads on context window. GLM-4.6V-Flash wins 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-4.6V-FlashGLM-4.6V-Flash $0.261 · Grok 4.1 Fast $0.275 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGrok 4.1 FastGrok 4.1 Fast 2,000,000 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 · GLM-4.6V-Flash 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGLM-4.6V-FlashGLM-4.6V-Flash: Text, Images, Video · Grok 4.1 Fast: Text, Images · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text
  • Self-hostingGLM-4.6V-Flash and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Publishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.6V-FlashGrok 4.1 FastQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
Price50%747349
Inputs & features30%705035
Context window20%247237
Overall100%63/10066/10042/100

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 Grok 4.1 Fast vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.6V-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)Grok 4.1 FastxAIQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——143.8
ECI rank——#93 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions——80.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics——86.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions——40.4%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.161 (best)$0.20$0.30
Output$0.559$0.50 (best)$2.90
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$0.261 (best)$0.275$0.95
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersMedian of 6 providersMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens2,000,000 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens30,000 tokens81,920 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesNoYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpenApache 2.0
API model IDglm-4.6v-flash——
API providers6812 (best)
ReleasedDec 8, 2025Nov 19, 2025Jul 25, 2025
Knowledge cutoff———
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
  • Grok 4.1 Fast$3.00
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.6V-Flash, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against GLM-4.6V-Flash (63) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (42). It leads on context window. GLM-4.6V-Flash wins 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-4.6V-Flash, Grok 4.1 Fast or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

GLM-4.6V-Flash is cheaper at $0.161 input / $0.559 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Z.AI). Grok 4.1 Fast costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers); Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.261 per million tokens for GLM-4.6V-Flash versus $0.275 for Grok 4.1 Fast (1.1× as much) and $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (3.6× 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, Grok 4.1 Fast has not been scored yet and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 has an ECI of 143.8.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.6V-Flash, Grok 4.1 Fast and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 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?

Grok 4.1 Fast has the largest context window at 2,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and 128,000 for GLM-4.6V-Flash. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.6V-Flash up to 32,768, Grok 4.1 Fast up to 30,000, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.6V-Flash accepts text, images and video; Grok 4.1 Fast accepts text and images; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text. GLM-4.6V-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-4.6V-Flash and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Grok 4.1 Fast is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-4.6V-Flash is the newest, released Dec 8, 2025. Grok 4.1 Fast came out Nov 19, 2025; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 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 Nov 2, 2026.