ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-4.7 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comes out ahead, 79 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7

    Released Dec 22, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.7
    • Price$0.60 / $2.20
    • Context205K
    Full specs Remove GLM-4.7
  2. Our pick

    DeepSeek

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    Released Oct 17, 2026New

    79/100
    • ECI158.8
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is our pick

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 · GLM-4.7 143.7
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · GLM-4.7 $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · GLM-4.7 204,800 tokens
  • Widest inputsDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GLM-4.7: Text · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6987
Price25%4874
Inputs & features15%3570
Context window10%3260
Overall100%55/10079/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GLM-4.7 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.7158.8 (best)
ECI rank#94 of 165#19 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions83.3%93.2% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—71.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics83.3%99.4% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions32.2%42.5% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$0.15 (best)
Output$2.20$0.60 (best)
Cached input$0.11$0.003 (best)
Blended (3:1)$1.00$0.263 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial DeepSeek API
Limits
Context window204,800 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens384,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · high · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenMIT
API model IDglm-4.7deepseek-flash
API providers3140 (best)
ReleasedDec 22, 2025Oct 17, 2026
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025May 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$10.40
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-4.7 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against GLM-4.7 (55). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). GLM-4.7 costs $0.60 input / $2.20 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $1.00 for GLM-4.7 (3.8× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165) and GLM-4.7 143.7 (#94 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (156.7–162.2 vs 141.4–145.8), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%, GLM-4.7 83.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, GLM-4.7 83.3%; SimpleQA Verified — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 42.5%, GLM-4.7 32.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.7 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 204,800 for GLM-4.7. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.7 up to 131,072, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-4.7 accepts text; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. GLM-4.7 came out Dec 22, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.7 Apr 2025, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons