DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) vs GLM-5.1
Which one, when
Both are text-in, text-out models for chat, code, reasoning and tools, so the split is mostly price and headroom: deepseek-v4-flash-0731 takes $0.44 per million input and $1.32 output with a 1,000,000-token context and 393,216-token max output, while glm-5.1 costs roughly 3.2x more on input and about 3.3x more on output at $1.4 and $4.4, with a 200,000-token context and 131,072-token cap. Pick the DeepSeek model for long documents, big generations and cache-heavy loops, where its $0.044 cache reads are about 5.9x cheaper. Choose glm-5.1 when you want its ability to disable thinking on a per-call basis.
Benchmarks
GLM-5.1: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) | GLM-5.1 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.44 | $1.4 | 0.31× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $1.32 | $4.4 | 0.3× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.044 | $0.26 | 0.17× |
| 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 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | yes (vendor dial not published) | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | 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 Flash (0731) | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-07-31 | 2026-04-07 |
| Context window | 1M | 200K |
| Max output | 393K | 131K |
| Thinking parameter | - | thinking.type |
| Accepted values | - | thinking.type
|
| Default | - | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think |
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 Flash (0731) · GLM-5.1
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning mode prompts the model to generate extensive internal chain-of-thought tokens before answering, often multiplying total token output per query by several times. This directly inflates costs because we are billed per token, and these reasoning tokens are processed at a premium compute tier that carries a higher price per million tokens. However, this spend buys measurably higher accuracy and fewer failed calls, so we are tracking it against specific error-reduction KPIs to ensure the ROI justifies the increase.
out 365 tok (+266 thinking) latency 5.1 s
GLM-5.1 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning shifts the LLM from generating quick answers to producing hidden "chain-of-thought" tokens that systematically explore multiple solution paths before responding. Because billing is based on total tokens processed, these invisible reasoning tokens drastically increase input and output volume per query, often adding thousands of compute-intensive tokens to a single prompt. Consequently, our bill doubled not from higher per-token rates or increased user volume, but from the exponentially deeper computational work required to deliver higher-quality, more reliable outputs.
out 98 tok latency 7.8 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 Flash (0731) 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 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The original bug stems from initializing `cur` to 0 and only incrementing it when adjacent elements are equal, which counts the number of *equal transitions* rather than the actual run length—so every run of length L is reported as L−1, and a single‑element run (with no transitions) yields 0. Moreover, because `best` is updated only inside the equality branch, it never accounts for a run that ends at the last element if that run is longer than any previously seen (though the real issue remains the off‑by‑one). […]
out 1268 tok (+1016 thinking) latency 14.0 s
GLM-5.1 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 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original function initialized `cur` and `best` to `0` and only incremented `cur` when a duplicate was found. This counts the number of *extra* equal items in a run rather than the total run length, so every run is reported as one shorter than it actually is—returning `0` for single-element lists and `L-1` for a run of length `L` (including those ending at the last index). The fix initializes `cur` and `best` to `1` (when the list is non‑empty) and resets `cur` to `1` on a mismatch, so `cur` tracks the full length of the current run and `best` records the true maximum.
out 3823 tok (+3585 thinking) latency 49.7 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null }
out 1119 tok (+1072 thinking) latency 12.3 s
GLM-5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```
out 1091 tok (+1028 thinking) latency 15.2 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) missed · 141 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Prompt Cache for API Gateway** We are pleased to announce Prompt Cache, a new feature that stores and reuses identical prompt prefixes across all connected LLM providers. By automatically recognizing repeated requests, this cache reduces token consumption and lowers latency without altering your application logic. Whether you use OpenAI, Anthropic, or open-source models, the cache operates transparently, ensuring consistent behavior while cutting costs. Developers can configure cache TTL and scoping rules via a simple API call, giving you precise control over data freshness and privacy. This feature also minimizes redundant upstream calls, freeing provider rate limits for more critical workloads. Start caching today through the dashboard or CLI, and watch your operational expenses drop significantly. […]
out 254 tok (+80 thinking) latency 4.4 s
GLM-5.1 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are excited to introduce Prompt Cache for our API Gateway. This new feature stores responses for identical prompts, routing subsequent requests directly to the cache instead of calling the underlying AI provider. Are you tired of paying multiple times for the exact same query? Prompt Cache solves this by recognizing duplicate inputs across all supported providers, drastically reducing latency and operational costs. When a user submits a request that matches a previously cached prompt, the gateway returns the stored answer instantly. You can configure cache expiration and scope rules via your dashboard to maintain data freshness. Stop wasting budget on redundant computational work. Upgrade to the latest gateway tier today to start saving time and money on every call.
out 3935 tok (+3802 thinking) latency 41.1 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-flash-0731",
# model="glm-5.1", # 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-flash-0731",
// model: "glm-5.1", // 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-flash-0731",
# "model": "glm-5.1", # 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-flash-0731",
// Model: "glm-5.1", // 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-flash-0731")
// .model("glm-5.1") // 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 Flash (0731) or GLM-5.1?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (0731) is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.44 vs $1.4, 3.2× 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 Flash (0731) against GLM-5.1 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 Flash (0731) and GLM-5.1 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.