🎁 新用戶 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs GLM-5.1

vs

何時該用哪一個 — 綜合評斷,而非基準測試數據表

兩者皆為純文字輸入與輸出的推論模型,具備對話、程式碼與工具使用功能,且定價相近:deepseek-v4-pro-0813 的輸入為 $1.32,輸出為 $3.96,而 glm-5.1 則為 $1.4 與 $4.4。當任務為大量或長文件處理時,請選擇 deepseek-v4-pro-0813,因為其 1000000-token 脈絡長度大了 5x,393216-token 最大輸出高了 3x,且其 $0.132 的快取讀取費率大約只有 glm-5.1 $0.26 費率的一半。當您想針對延遲敏感的呼叫關閉 thinking,且 200000 token 的脈絡已足夠時,請選擇較早發布 (2026-04-07) 的 glm-5.1。

定價

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) GLM-5.1 Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $1.32 $1.4 0.94×
輸出 / 1M tokens $3.96 $4.4 0.9×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.132 $0.26 0.51×
快取寫入 不額外計費

費率取自建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。

它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下,所有 63 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格(對數尺度)

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) · $1.32 GLM-5.1 · $1.4
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

能力

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) GLM-5.1
工具使用
思考控制 常駐開啟 可配置
結構化輸出
提示快取 隱式(自動) 隱式(自動)
快取生命週期 no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) 未公開
最小快取前綴 未公開 未公開

規格

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) GLM-5.1
輸入模態 文字 文字
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-08-13 2026-04-07
上下文視窗 1M 200K
最大輸出 393K 131K
思考參數 reasoning_effort thinking.type
可接受的值
reasoning_effort
  • the model card documents low
  • high
  • max
thinking.type
  • enabled
  • disabled
預設值 enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略,而非自行推測。 完整來源: DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) · GLM-5.1

單一提示詞,兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a hidden chain-of-thought with many additional tokens before producing the final answer, which sharply increases compute consumption per request. Those extra reasoning tokens are billed at the same or higher rates, so total usage doubled even though the volume of final outputs stayed similar. We can control this by adjusting reasoning effort, setting token limits, or routing only complex requests through reasoning mode.

輸出 308 tok (+226 思考) 延遲 5.1 s

GLM-5.1 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning requires the LLM to generate thousands of invisible "thinking" tokens to work through complex logic before producing the final answer. Because we are billed on total token volume, these intermediate steps are charged at the premium output rate, drastically increasing the variable cost per query. The invoice doubled simply because the model is now doing roughly twice the computational work per request, trading higher variable compute costs for significantly improved analytical accuracy.

輸出 913 tok (+827 思考) 延遲 10.9 s

指令遵循(恰好三句,可數)、受眾適配(面向 CFO 的語氣),以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。

提示詞 This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. 檢查 修復通過測試

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 通過 · 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` was initialized to `0` and only counted adjacent matching pairs, so a run of length `n` produced `n - 1` (or `0` for a single element) instead of `n`. The code also reset to `0` on a change, when the new run should start at length `1`. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` fixes both the single-element case and runs ending at the last index.

輸出 1315 tok (+1130 思考) 延遲 16.9 s

GLM-5.1 通過 · 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 function tracks the number of adjacent equal pairs rather than the actual run length. By initializing `cur` and `best` to 0 and incrementing `cur` only when a match occurs, a run of length L produces a count of L−1. This causes single‑element inputs to return 0 (since the loop never runs) and generally returns a value one less than the true run length, effectively omitting the final element of any run—including those that end at the last index. […]

輸出 2642 tok (+2414 思考) 延遲 26.1 s

修復是否真的正確(可執行)、解釋的資訊密度,以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。

提示詞 Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. 檢查 合法 JSON,schema 精確

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":null}

輸出 2155 tok (+2121 思考) 延遲 26.0 s

GLM-5.1 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": null } ```

輸出 1465 tok (+1410 思考) 延遲 16.1 s

schema 服從度(不臆造欄位)、幻覺壓力(guidance 明確被暫緩給出),以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。

提示詞 Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 通過 · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing cross-provider prompt caching in our API gateway. Send a prompt once, and the gateway stores its computed prefix across Anthropic, OpenAI, and other LLM providers. Subsequent requests with the same prompt hit the cache, cutting latency and token costs while keeping outputs consistent across routing decisions and provider failovers. Teams can route identical prompts between providers without reprocessing shared context or lengthy system instructions. How much could you save on repeated prompt prefixes? The cache respects provider-specific key formats, handles TTLs automatically, and works with streaming and batch requests. Enable it with one configuration flag—no changes to your application code. Available today on all plans. Monitor cache hit rates, token savings, and provider-specific performance metrics in the live dashboard.

輸出 2845 tok (+2694 思考) 延遲 25.5 s

GLM-5.1 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are thrilled to introduce prompt caching across providers in the API gateway. Why pay twice for the same prompt context? Now, when your application sends identical prompt prefixes to different LLM providers, our gateway automatically caches the input, reducing latency and cutting costs. This feature intelligently recognizes repeated prompt structures across OpenAI, Anthropic, and others, storing them efficiently at the network edge. Developers no longer need to manage separate caching logic for each individual provider. Instead, our unified system handles it directly, ensuring faster response times on all subsequent requests. Stop wasting valuable tokens on redundant processing workloads. Upgrade your integration today and experience immediate performance gains while keeping your infrastructure simple and your overall monthly billing incredibly low.

輸出 7589 tok (+7447 思考) 延遲 188.9 s

約束服從度(字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句)、文風指紋,以及長度控制。

只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換

以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點,相同的金鑰,相同的請求結構。

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="deepseek-v4-pro-0813",
    # model="glm-5.1",  # 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 和 GLM-5.1 哪個比較便宜?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜($1.32 對比 $1.4,相差 1.1×)。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊,實際成本取決於您的使用組合。

我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下,對 DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 和 GLM-5.1 進行 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務,並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串,因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 與 GLM-5.1 支援提示快取嗎?

是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率,因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。

相關比較