DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  DeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek |  GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #29 of 4654.6 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.4–69.8 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #5 of 44$0.022 per LiveBench case | #2 of 44$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #1 of 3877.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 68.2–84.9 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.15DeepSeek ↗ · Sep 10, 2026 | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.60Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 10, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader | 4.88100% of row best · score · Deepseek V4.1 Flash (Max); 95% CI [3.54852933, 6.21109128]; sessions 20080; observations 2295632; rank 12 | 1.1596% of row best · score · GLM 5.3 Flash; 95% CI [0.48275443, 1.81278415]; sessions 43164; observations 4433017; rank 25 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 83.20100% of row best · percent · deepseek-v4.1-flash-max · 36,355 output tokens / case | 73.2788% of row best · percent · glm-5.3-flash · 34,707 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 88.03100% of row best · points · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) · 18,199 output tokens / case | 88.19100% of row best · points · GLM-5.3 Flash · 25,960 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Family | Deepseek V4 1 | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-10 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 763.2B | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | mit | MIT |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | DeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, fim, generation, reasoning, responses, structured_outputs, tools, vision | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
| Architecture design | Causal Encoder-Decoder (20 encoder + 20 decoder layers) | Unknown |
| Backbone parameters | 552000000000 parameters | Unknown |
| Active parameters during decode | 16000000000 parameters | Unknown |
| Active parameters during prefill | 8000000000 parameters | Unknown |
| Pre-training corpus | 45000000000000 tokens | Unknown |
| Reasoning effort range | 1–100 | Unknown |
| Routed experts per MoE layer | 384 experts | Unknown |
| Routed experts per token | 6 experts | Unknown |
| Transformer layers | 40 layers | Unknown |
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
DeepSeek-V4-FlashDeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is $0.15 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is $0.60 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.25 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the larger sourced context window. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash supports 1,049K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash supports 393K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 131K output tokens.
Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 3 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.