ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.5 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.2

Too close to call on our weighted score (Mistral Small 3.2 64, Step 3.5 Flash 62, GLM-4.7-Flash 62). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7-Flash

    Released Jan 19, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.40
    • Context200K
  2. StepFun

    Step 3.5 Flash

    Released Jan 29, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.10 / $0.30
    • Context256K
  3. Mistral AI

    Mistral Small 3.2

    Released Jun 20, 2025

    64/100
    • ECI131.7
    • Price$0.10 / $0.30
    • Context128K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mistral Small 3.2 64/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100, GLM-4.7-Flash 62/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7-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 priceGLM-4.7-FlashGLM-4.7-Flash $0.145 · Step 3.5 Flash $0.15 · Mistral Small 3.2 $0.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7-Flash 200,000 · Mistral Small 3.2 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsMistral Small 3.2GLM-4.7-Flash: Text · Step 3.5 Flash: Text · Mistral Small 3.2: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7-FlashStep 3.5 FlashMistral Small 3.2
Price50%908989
Inputs & features30%353550
Context window20%323624
Overall100%62/10062/10064/100

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-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.5 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.2 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)Step 3.5 FlashStepFunMistral Small 3.2Mistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——131.7
ECI rank——#123 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions45.1%—49.1% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics25.0%—30.3% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.06 (best)$0.10$0.10
Output$0.40$0.30 (best)$0.30 (best)
Cached input—$0.02—
Blended (3:1)$0.145 (best)$0.15$0.15
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 13 providersOfficial StepFun (Global) APIOfficial Mistral API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens256,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens256,000 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · highNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpen
API model IDglm-4.7-flashstep-3.5-flashmistral-small-2506
API providers19 (best)86
ReleasedJan 19, 2026Jan 29, 2026Jun 20, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Jan 2025Mar 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-4.7-Flash$1.41
  • Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
  • Mistral Small 3.2$1.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7-Flash, Step 3.5 Flash or Mistral Small 3.2?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mistral Small 3.2 64/100, Step 3.5 Flash 62/100, GLM-4.7-Flash 62/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: GLM-4.7-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-4.7-Flash, Step 3.5 Flash or Mistral Small 3.2?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 13 API providers; free on Z.AI). Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price); Mistral Small 3.2 costs $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.145 per million tokens for GLM-4.7-Flash versus $0.15 for Step 3.5 Flash (1× as much) and $0.15 for Mistral Small 3.2 (1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.7-Flash has not been scored yet, Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet and Mistral Small 3.2 has an ECI of 131.7.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7-Flash, Step 3.5 Flash and Mistral Small 3.2 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-Flash and 128,000 for Mistral Small 3.2. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-Flash up to 131,072, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000, Mistral Small 3.2 up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7-Flash accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text; Mistral Small 3.2 accepts text and images. Mistral Small 3.2 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-Flash came out Jan 19, 2026; Mistral Small 3.2 came out Jun 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-Flash Apr 2025, Step 3.5 Flash Jan 2025, Mistral Small 3.2 Mar 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.