The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash are closely matched at 51.0 and 48.6 on the LLM Stats Score. GLM-5.3-Flash is 2.2x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · Zhipu AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 51.0 and 48.6.

In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 2.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 7 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose GLM-5.3-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 2.2x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
GLM-5.3-Flash
Zhipu AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
48.6
#28
Reasoning
48.6
#18
47.8
#22
Coding
39.1
#15
31.3
#55
Agents
38.6
#9
34.7
#27
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
6 of 7
1 of 7
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.50 / M
Context window
1,048,576
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
GLM-5.3-Flash
Vision
32.2#26
30.9#35
Tool use
30.9#7
29.0#18
Multimodal
35.0#14
30.3#37
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 15 for GLM-5.3-Flash

7 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (Agents' Last Exam, AutomationBench, BabyVision, Chartography, DeepSWE 1.1, NL2Repo), while GLM-5.3-Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Humanity's Last Exam).

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Oct 21 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-5.3-Flash costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.4x more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Oct 21 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

443.2B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 has 443.2B more parameters than GLM-5.3-Flash, making it 138.5% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
320.0Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
320.0B
GLM-5.3-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 1,048,576 tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is limited to 393,216 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output1,048,576 tokens
Wed Oct 21 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GLM-5.3-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under MIT.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

GLM-5.3-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 2 months newer than GLM-5.3-Flash.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

2 days ago

1mo newer
GLM-5.3-Flash

Aug 26, 2026

1 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek. GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI, Novita, ZAI.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

GLM-5.3-Flash

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
friendli logo
FriendliAI
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
GLM-5.3-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs GLM-5.3-Flash.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 51.0 and 48.6. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek and GLM-5.3-Flash is made by Zhipu AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 compare to GLM-5.3-Flash in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%. GLM-5.3-Flash scores CharXiv-R: 89.4%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, MMVU: 80.5%, Toolathlon: 78.4%, Chartography: 78.0%.

Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 cheaper than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek. GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.50/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens and GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 48.6), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.15/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and GLM-5.3-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI.

Related comparisons