GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Hy-MT2-30B-A3B vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 comes out ahead, 63 to 59 and 44 on our weighted score, though Hy-MT2-30B-A3B is 14% cheaper per token.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
TencentHy-MT2-30B-A3B
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.074 / $0.295
- Context8K
- Our pick
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash 2603
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is our pick
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against GLM-4.7-FlashX (59) and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B wins on price. 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 priceHy-MT2-30B-A3BHy-MT2-30B-A3B $0.129 · Step 3.5 Flash 2603 $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextStep 3.5 Flash 2603Step 3.5 Flash 2603 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B: Text · Step 3.5 Flash 2603: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7-FlashX | Hy-MT2-30B-A3B | Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 85 | 88 | 85 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 0 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 0 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 59/100 | 44/100 | 63/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | GLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu) | Hy-MT2-30B-A3BTencent | Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.07 (best) | $0.074 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.295 (best) | $0.30 |
| Cached input | $0.01 (best) | — | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.152 | $0.129 (best) | $0.15 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Median of 3 providers | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 4,096 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.7-flashx | — | step-3.5-flash-2603 |
| API providers | 10 (best) | 3 | 4 |
| Released | Jan 19, 2026 | May 21, 2026 | Apr 2, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | — | Jan 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-4.7-FlashX$1.50
- Hy-MT2-30B-A3B$1.33
- Step 3.5 Flash 2603$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7-FlashX, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B or Step 3.5 Flash 2603?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against GLM-4.7-FlashX (59) and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B wins on price. 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-FlashX, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B or Step 3.5 Flash 2603?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.074 input / $0.295 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Step 3.5 Flash 2603 costs $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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.129 per million tokens for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B versus $0.15 for Step 3.5 Flash 2603 (1.2× as much) and $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B has not been scored yet and Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7-FlashX, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B and Step 3.5 Flash 2603 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Hy-MT2-30B-A3B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX and 8,192 for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B up to 4,096, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Hy-MT2-30B-A3B accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash 2603 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B is the newest, released May 21, 2026. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 came out Apr 2, 2026; GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 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 Nov 2, 2026.
