GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Seed 2.0 Mini vs Step 3.5 Flash
Seed 2.0 Mini comes out ahead, 80 to 62 and 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 2.0 Mini
80/100- ECI—
- Price$0.03 / $0.297
- Context256K
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Seed 2.0 Mini is our pick
Seed 2.0 Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on price and 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 priceSeed 2.0 MiniSeed 2.0 Mini $0.097 · Step 3.5 Flash $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSeed 2.0 Mini and Step 3.5 FlashSeed 2.0 Mini 256,000 · Step 3.5 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 2.0 MiniGLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Seed 2.0 Mini: Text, Images, Video · Step 3.5 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-4.7-FlashX and Step 3.5 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.7-FlashX | Seed 2.0 Mini | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 98 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 36 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 80/100 | 62/100 |
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) | Seed 2.0 MiniByteDance Seed | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.07 | $0.03 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.297 (best) | $0.30 |
| Cached input | $0.01 | $0.0059 (best) | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.152 | $0.097 (best) | $0.15 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.059 / $0.594 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Volcengine Ark API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 32,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.7-flashx | doubao-seed-2-0-mini-260428 | step-3.5-flash |
| API providers | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Released | Jan 19, 2026 | Feb 14, 2026 | Jan 29, 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
- Seed 2.0 Mini$0.891
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7-FlashX, Seed 2.0 Mini or Step 3.5 Flash?
Seed 2.0 Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Step 3.5 Flash (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on price and 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-4.7-FlashX, Seed 2.0 Mini or Step 3.5 Flash?
Seed 2.0 Mini is cheaper at $0.03 input / $0.297 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark API price). Step 3.5 Flash 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 $0.097 per million tokens for Seed 2.0 Mini versus $0.15 for Step 3.5 Flash (1.6× as much) and $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1.6× 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, Seed 2.0 Mini 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-4.7-FlashX, Seed 2.0 Mini 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?
Seed 2.0 Mini and Step 3.5 Flash have the largest context windows (256,000 and 256,000 tokens), against 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Seed 2.0 Mini up to 32,000, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Seed 2.0 Mini accepts text, images and video; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text. Seed 2.0 Mini handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.7-FlashX and Step 3.5 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Seed 2.0 Mini is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Seed 2.0 Mini is the newest, released Feb 14, 2026. Step 3.5 Flash came out Jan 29, 2026; GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026. 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.
