DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V4-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,431.9897% of row best · rating · deepseek-v4-flash; 95% CI [1427.84091263, 1436.10937297]; votes 48963; rank 80 | 1,470.91100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1461.80526636, 1480.01283657]; votes 4399; rank 23 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 69.6795% of row best · percent · deepseek-v4-flash · 34,434 output tokens / case | 73.27100% of row best · percent · glm-5.3-flash · 34,707 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | DeepSeek-V4-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Family | Deepseek V4 Flash | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | DeepSeek-V4-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | DeepSeek-V4-Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,048,576 | 1,000,000 |
| Total parameters | 290,944,616,402 | 320,000,000,000 |
| Active parameters | 13,000,000,000 | 18,000,000,000 |
| License | mit | MIT |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | DeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
17 comparable fields · 12 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
DeepSeek-V4-Flash Capabilities
GLM-5.3-Flash Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
DeepSeek-V4-FlashDeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-ExpDeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-ExpDeepSeek | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | vs | GLM-5V-TurboZ.ai | family variantsimage, text, video |
 Nova 2 LiteAmazon | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text, video |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Command A VisionCohere | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | cross-developer peersimage, text |
GLM-OCRZ.ai | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | family variantsimage, text |
 Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GLM-5.3Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V4-FlashDeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4-Flash-BaseDeepSeek | family variantstext |
GLM-5.2Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai | family variantstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash FAQs
Is DeepSeek-V4-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek-V4-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-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash?+
DeepSeek-V4-Flash is $0.0868 and GLM-5.3-Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper on this metric. DeepSeek-V4-Flash is $0.1736 and GLM-5.3-Flash is $0.25 per million tokens, so DeepSeek-V4-Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek-V4-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash?+
DeepSeek-V4-Flash has the larger sourced context window. DeepSeek-V4-Flash supports 1,048,576 and GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1,000,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, DeepSeek-V4-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash?+
GLM-5.3-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-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. DeepSeek-V4-Flash is open weight; GLM-5.3-Flash is open weight.
Can DeepSeek-V4-Flash and GLM-5.3-Flash understand images?+
DeepSeek-V4-Flash is not 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-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. DeepSeek-V4-Flash is — and GLM-5.3-Flash is 131,072.
Do DeepSeek-V4-Flash and GLM-5.3-Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
DeepSeek-V4-Flash: reasoning. 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-Flash or GLM-5.3-Flash?+
DeepSeek-V4-Flash has 3 sourced provider routes; GLM-5.3-Flash has 2, so DeepSeek-V4-Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, DeepSeek-V4-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.