GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Too close to call on our weighted score (Step 3.5 Flash 2603 62, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash 2603
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Step 3.5 Flash 2603 62/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 on price and Step 3.5 Flash 2603 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 Flash 2603Step 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 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7-FlashX: 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 | Step 3.5 Flash 2603 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 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) | Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.07 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.30 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.01 (best) | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.152 | $0.15 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.7-flashx | step-3.5-flash-2603 |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Jan 19, 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
- Step 3.5 Flash 2603$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7-FlashX or Step 3.5 Flash 2603?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Step 3.5 Flash 2603 62/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 61/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 on price and Step 3.5 Flash 2603 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-FlashX or Step 3.5 Flash 2603?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash 2603 versus $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-4.7-FlashX 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 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
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. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash 2603 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is the newest, released 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 Oct 4, 2026.
