GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash

vs

什麼情況選哪一個

這兩者在價目表和規格表上幾乎相同:皆接受文字、圖片與影片輸入,輸出文字,具備 1000000-token 上下文,並收取每百萬輸入 token $0.15 的費用,而 glm-5.3-flash 的輸出費用為 $0.5,qwen3.8-flash 則為 $0.47。針對快取密集型工作負載,請選擇 qwen3.8-flash,其 $0.016 的快取讀取費用略低於 glm-5.3-flash 收取之 $0.03 的一半,且當您需要可選擇關閉思考功能時也很適合;當單次回覆需要較長篇幅時請選擇 glm-5.3-flash,因為它允許 163840 個輸出 token,而後者為 131072 個。

Benchmark 成績

高於平均沒有模型更高GLM-5.3-Flash4 / 61 / 6Qwen3.8 Flash12 / 163 / 16
GLM-5.3-Flash Qwen3.8 Flash 其他有成績的模型 其他模型平均 ★ 沒有模型分數更高
DeepSWE 1.1
63.4%
58.7%
OSWorld 2.0 partial
N/A
52.3%
JobBench
N/A
55.7%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
91.7%
ERQA
N/A
沒有模型分數更高 72.3%
Agents' Last Exam
26.3%
N/A
LVBench
N/A
76.6%

供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定價

GLM-5.3-Flash Qwen3.8 Flash Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $0.15 $0.15 =
輸出 / 1M tokens $0.5 $0.47 1.1×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.03 $0.016 1.9×
快取寫入 - 1.25x -

費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。

兩者的相對位置:每 1M tokens 的輸入價格,涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 80 個聊天模型(對數尺度)

GLM-5.3-Flash · $0.15 Qwen3.8 Flash · $0.15
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

功能

GLM-5.3-Flash Qwen3.8 Flash
工具使用 是 是
思考控制 一律開啟 可設定
結構化輸出 是 是
提示詞快取 隱式(自動) 隱式 + 顯式
快取存活時間 未公布 explicit: 5m, reset on hit
最小快取前綴 未公布 1,024 個 token

規格

GLM-5.3-Flash Qwen3.8 Flash
輸入模態 文字 圖像 影片 文字 圖像 影片
輸出模態 文字 文字
發布日期 2026-08-26 2026-08-27
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 164K 131K
思考參數 reasoning_effort
  • enable_thinking
  • thinking_budget
  • preserve_thinking
可接受的值
reasoning_effort
  • low
  • high
  • max
enable_thinking
  • true
  • false
thinking_budget
  • in tokens
preserve_thinking
  • true
  • false
預設值 max

on

qwen3.8-flash is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, thinking_budget defaults to the 262,144-token chain maximum, and preserve_thinking is off

規格摘錄自各供應商的文件;供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過,不自行推測。 完整來源: GLM-5.3-Flash · Qwen3.8 Flash

同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測

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

GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 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.

輸出 742 tok (+626 思考) 延遲 23.2 s

Qwen3.8 Flash 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model spend additional output tokens to plan and validate answers before responding, and those tokens are billed. It also increases compute and latency per request, so each task consumes more capacity than a non-reasoning call. As a result, billable tokens and compute roughly doubled, directly driving the higher invoice.

輸出 330 tok (+262 思考) 延遲 8.9 s

是否照指令做(剛好三句,數得出來)、語氣是否貼合對象(寫給 CFO 看),以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。

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 修正後通過測試

GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 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). […]

輸出 2462 tok (+2138 思考) 延遲 29.1 s

Qwen3.8 Flash 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 the original version counts adjacent equal pairs rather than items in a run, starting both `cur` and `best` at `0`, and it resets `cur` to `0` after a mismatch, thereby discarding the first element of the new run. That makes single-element inputs return `0`, and because every run is effectively measured in “steps” between equal elements, the last element is not counted—particularly noticeable when the longest run ends at the final index.

輸出 2123 tok (+1933 思考) 延遲 43.8 s

修正是否真的正確(跑得起來)、說明的資訊密度,以及在範圍明確的任務上的 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 有效的 JSON,完全符合 schema

GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 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.

輸出 717 tok (+616 思考) 延遲 9.1 s

Qwen3.8 Flash 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

輸出 519 tok (+463 思考) 延遲 10.5 s

是否遵守 schema(不自創欄位)、面對幻覺誘因的表現(題目明確不給 guidance),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

GLM-5.3-Flash 通過 · 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.

輸出 2095 tok (+1937 思考) 延遲 20.2 s

Qwen3.8 Flash 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are announcing prompt caching across providers in our API gateway. Store approved prompt outputs once and reuse them across supported model providers, cutting latency, cost, and duplicate token spend. The feature matches identical requests, checks validity, and returns cached results while preserving routing controls. Developers keep existing endpoints; the gateway manages storage, invalidation, and provider differences. This reduces noisy repeat calls, improves steady responses, and frees teams to focus on better agent workflows. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral, and custom routes are supported. Cache hits appear in analytics with latency, token, and cost reductions visible. Check retention and privacy rules before enabling it. Ready to add cache controls to your gateway? Enable it in settings and watch spend drop now.

輸出 5958 tok (+5805 思考) 延遲 88.8 s

是否遵守限制(字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句)、文字風格的特徵,以及長度控制。

改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換

下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID,要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。

from openai import OpenAI

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

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="glm-5.3-flash",
    # model="qwen3.8-flash",  # 取消這一行的註解,並把上一行註解掉
    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

GLM-5.3-Flash 和 Qwen3.8 Flash 哪個比較便宜?

兩者的「輸入 / 1M tokens」相同($0.15),這一項分不出高下,請看下方的規格與功能。

可以只串接一次,就對 GLM-5.3-Flash 和 Qwen3.8 Flash 做 A/B 測試嗎?

可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點,用的也是同一把 API 金鑰,切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊,再直接比較帳單。

GLM-5.3-Flash 與 Qwen3.8 Flash 支援提示詞快取嗎?

支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率,所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載,實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。

相關比較