DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Which one, when
Both run a 1000000-token context with identical $0.03 cache reads, so the split is output length and inputs: deepseek-v4.1-flash allows up to 393216 output tokens (2.4x glm-5.3-flash's 163840) at $0.3 input and $1.2 output, while glm-5.3-flash costs half as much on input at $0.15 and 2.4x less on output at $0.5. Pick deepseek-v4.1-flash for very long single generations; pick glm-5.3-flash for cheaper high-volume text and image work, or when you need video input, noting that its thinking mode cannot be turned off.
Benchmarks
5 measured on both.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 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 | $0.03 | $0.03 | = |
| Cache write | no separate charge | - | - |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 69 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | 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 | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-09-10 | - |
| 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 · GLM-5.3-Flash
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning changed the unit economics: the model now spends extra billable tokens internally to “think” before producing the answer, and those reasoning tokens are charged like output tokens even though users never see them. That added token generation—plus longer contexts and occasional retries on harder prompts—roughly doubled our cost per request. We can control this by capping reasoning depth, routing only complex queries to reasoning models, and caching common prompts to bring the bill back down.
out 423 tok (+327 thinking) latency 14.6 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 - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 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` is counting equal adjacent pairs, not elements in the current run: every time `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`, the run length increases by one element, but the first element of the run was never counted, so all runs are undercounted by one. Also, `best` starts at `0`, so single-element inputs return `0` instead of `1`, and a one-element run ending at the last index is missed entirely.
out 918 tok (+733 thinking) latency 11.4 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 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 1707 tok (+1667 thinking) latency 15.1 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 passed · 116 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Cache for our API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests and their responses across supported model providers, then serves cached results when a match is found. Teams can cut duplicate inference costs, reduce latency, and keep behavior consistent during provider failover. The cache works with configurable TTLs, per-route rules, and cache-key controls, so you decide what is reusable and what must stay fresh. Does your application send the same prompts to multiple providers? Now your gateway can answer many of those calls without another upstream request. Existing observability dashboards show hit rates, saved tokens, and estimated spend reduction. Enable it in the gateway console, set your policy, and start caching today.
out 917 tok (+770 thinking) latency 9.0 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",
# 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",
// 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",
# "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",
// 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")
// .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 or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.15 vs $0.3, 2.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 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 model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-5.3-Flash support prompt caching?
Yes - both bill cached 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.