GLM-4.7-FlashX vs Step 3.5 Flash vs Trinity Large Preview
Too close to call on our weighted score (Step 3.5 Flash 35, Trinity Large Preview 34, GLM-4.7-FlashX 34). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.7-FlashX
34/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.40
- Context200K
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Arcee AITrinity Large Preview
34/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context524K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Step 3.5 Flash 35/100, Trinity Large Preview 34/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 34/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash on price and Trinity Large Preview for long inputs. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Trinity Large Preview unpriced
- Longest contextTrinity Large PreviewTrinity Large Preview 524,288 · Step 3.5 Flash 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · Step 3.5 Flash: Text · Trinity Large Preview: 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 | Trinity Large Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 40% | 32 | 36 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 35/100 | 34/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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 FlashStepFun | Trinity Large PreviewArcee AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 524,288 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens | 262,144 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 | Yeslow · high | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | glm-4.7-flashx | step-3.5-flash | — |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 8 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jan 19, 2026 | Jan 29, 2026 | Jan 27, 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$1.60
- Trinity Large Preview—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.7-FlashX, Step 3.5 Flash or Trinity Large Preview?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Step 3.5 Flash 35/100, Trinity Large Preview 34/100, GLM-4.7-FlashX 34/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash on price and Trinity Large Preview for long inputs. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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, Step 3.5 Flash or Trinity Large Preview?
Step 3.5 Flash 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 versus $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1× as much). Trinity Large Preview has no published per-token price.
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, Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet and Trinity Large Preview has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7-FlashX, Step 3.5 Flash and Trinity Large Preview 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?
Trinity Large Preview has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash and 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000, Trinity Large Preview up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text; Trinity Large Preview accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (OpenMDW-1.1), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. Trinity Large Preview came out Jan 27, 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.
