DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Which one, when
Both carry a 1,000,000-token context window and text/image input with text output, so the split is cost shape and output ceiling: glm-5.3-flash is half the input price ($0.15 vs $0.3) and 2.4x cheaper on output ($0.5 vs $1.2), and it also accepts video, while deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 reads cache at $0.006 per million, 5x cheaper than $0.03, and allows 393216 max output tokens versus 163840. Pick glm-5.3-flash for video input or high-volume fresh prompts; pick deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 for cache-heavy reuse or very long single generations.
Benchmarks
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017): the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) | GLM-5.3-Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.3 | $0.15 | 2× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $1.2 | $0.5 | 2.4× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.006 | $0.03 | 0.2× |
| Cache write | no separate charge | - | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 79 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | yes (vendor dial not published) | always on |
| Structured output | - | yes |
| Prompt caching | implicit (automatic) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) | not published |
| Minimum cached prefix | not published | not published |
Specs
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-10-17 | 2026-08-26 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 393K | 164K |
| Thinking parameter | - | reasoning_effort |
| Accepted values | - | reasoning_effort
|
| Default | - | max |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) · GLM-5.3-Flash
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning caused each request to generate additional internal reasoning tokens, which are billed like output tokens and can be several times longer than the final answer. Those extra tokens raise cost per call, and longer responses plus occasional retries pushed total usage to roughly double. We can control this with reasoning-effort limits, token budgets, caching, and spend monitoring by use case.
out 253 tok (+178 thinking) latency 5.4 s
GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning means the model now generates thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens before each visible answer, and we're billed for those hidden tokens at full output rates—our most expensive tier. Since output tokens cost 3–5x more than input tokens, that hidden thinking volume compounds across every request, which is why the bill doubled rather than edged up. If the spend concerns you, the fix is straightforward: route only complex queries to reasoning models and keep simple tasks on standard ones, which can reclaim a meaningful share of that cost without losing accuracy where it matters.
out 742 tok (+626 thinking) latency 23.2 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` starts at `0` and is incremented only when two adjacent items match, so it counts equal adjacent pairs rather than run length; a run of length `k` is recorded as `k - 1`. Consequently, a single-element input returns `0`, and a run ending at the last index—especially a one-element final run—is undercounted or never counted. The fix initializes every run to length `1`, increments on a match, resets to `1` on a mismatch, updates `best` each iteration, and handles the empty input separately.
out 1300 tok (+1095 thinking) latency 11.8 s
GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **The bug:** `cur` is supposed to hold the length of the current run, but it's seeded with `0` and reset to `0` on a mismatch instead of `1` — and since the loop starts at index 1, the first element of every run never passes through the `==` branch and so never gets counted at all. That means `cur` actually holds *run length minus 1* for every run, so every run is underreported by one: a single-element input never enters the loop and returns 0 instead of 1, and a run of length n returns n − 1 (e.g., `[3, 3, 3]` returns 2). […]
out 2462 tok (+2138 thinking) latency 29.1 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 1375 tok (+1337 thinking) latency 12.2 s
GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending the Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: revenue of 412 is on a constant-currency basis as stated; growth of "eleven and change" is approximated as 11 since no precise figure is given.
out 717 tok (+616 thinking) latency 9.1 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we’re introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache in the API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests once and serves cached responses across supported model providers, reducing duplicate calls, latency, and spend. Teams can set cache keys by model, temperature, system prompt, and custom metadata, then choose TTLs per route or workspace. The gateway handles provider fallback while keeping cached results consistent with your policy. Is your team paying twice for the same prompt? Cross-Provider Prompt Cache helps you answer that. Configure it in the gateway dashboard, inspect hit rates by provider, and invalidate entries on demand. Existing gateway routes need no code changes; enable the feature and define your caching rules. Cross-Provider Prompt Cache is available for all API gateway customers.
out 2487 tok (+2335 thinking) latency 17.1 s
GLM-5.3-Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, the newest feature in our API gateway. Today, teams send identical prompts to multiple LLM providers and pay full price each time. Why duplicate that work and cost? With Cross-Provider Prompt Cache, your gateway stores prompt-response pairs and serves repeated requests from cache, regardless of which provider handles the call. The result: lower latency, reduced spend, and consistent outputs across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Configure cache policies per route, set TTLs, and invalidate entries instantly through the dashboard or API. Built-in analytics show hit rates and savings in real time. Enable the cache with a single flag, no code changes required. Available today on all paid plans. Contact sales for enterprise volume pricing details.
out 2095 tok (+1937 thinking) latency 20.2 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017",
# model="glm-5.3-flash", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017",
// model: "glm-5.3-flash", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017",
# "model": "glm-5.3-flash", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017",
// Model: "glm-5.3-flash", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017")
// .model("glm-5.3-flash") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.15 vs $0.3, 2.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) against GLM-5.3-Flash without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) and GLM-5.3-Flash support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.