Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GLM-5.1
何时使用哪一个 — 经过整理的结论，而非基准测试表格
当任务涉及图像、音频或视频输入，或提示词极长时选 gemini-3.7-flash：它接受全部四种输入模态，带 1048576 token 上下文，输入 $0.75、输出 $3.75，在两侧都低于 GLM-5.1 的 $1.4 和 $4.4（输入便宜约 1.87 倍）。产出大量 token 的纯文本工作选 glm-5.1，它允许最多 131072 输出 token 而非 65536，并且在任务不需要时可以关闭思考。两者都按每百万 token 计费，都做工具、代码和推理，所以真正的差别是模态与上下文对输出长度和成本的取舍。
定价
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 输入 / 1M tokens | $0.75 | $1.4 | 0.54× |
| 输出 / 1M tokens | $3.75 | $4.4 | 0.85× |
| 缓存读取 / 1M tokens | $0.075 | $0.26 | 0.29× |
费率取自构建时的实时目录；每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。
它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 63 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格（对数刻度）
能力
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 是 —— 厂商未公布调节参数 | 可配置 |
| 结构化输出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示词缓存 | 隐式 + 显式 | 隐式（自动） |
| 缓存生存时间 | 未公开 | 未公开 |
| 最小缓存前缀 | 4096 个 token | 未公开 |
规格
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| 输入模态 | 文本 图像 音频 视频 | 文本 |
| 输出模态 | 文本 | 文本 |
| 发布日期 | 2026-08-13 | 2026-04-07 |
| 上下文窗口 | 1M | 200K |
| 最大输出 | 66K | 131K |
| 思考参数 | — | thinking.type |
| 允许的值 | — | thinking.type
|
| 默认值 | — | enabled, and the model automatically determines whether to think |
规格转录自各供应商的文档；若供应商未发布某项数据，则直接省略该行，而非进行推断。 完整来源： Gemini 3.7 Flash · GLM-5.1
单个 Prompt，两个模型 —— 通过网关实测
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a high volume of invisible "thinking tokens" behind the scenes to deliberate and solve complex logic before delivering a final response. Because our vendor bills strictly on token volume, this additional internal computation effectively doubled our billable output per query. In short, our costs increased because we are now paying for the extra compute capacity required to produce significantly higher-accuracy answers.
输出 878 tok (+799 思考) 延迟 6.9 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 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.
输出 913 tok (+827 思考) 延迟 10.9 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可数）、受众适配（面向 CFO 的语气），以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 8/8 cases
Here is the corrected function: ```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 ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function tracked equal adjacent transitions instead of the actual number of elements in a run, causing all non-empty run lengths to be undercounted by one (e.g., returning `0` instead of `1` for single-element lists because the loop never executes, and `1` instead of `2` for pairs). Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` (after handling empty inputs) and resetting `cur` to `1` on a mismatch ensures every individual element is counted as a valid run of at least length one.
输出 1050 tok (+827 思考) 延迟 6.4 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 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. […]
输出 2642 tok (+2414 思考) 延迟 26.1 s
修复是否真的正确（可运行）、解释的信息密度，以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld" } ```
输出 918 tok (+858 思考) 延迟 6.2 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": null } ```
输出 1465 tok (+1410 思考) 延迟 16.1 s
schema 服从度（不臆造字段）、幻觉压力（guidance 明确被暂缓给出），以及结构化输出路径的差异。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 通过 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Why pay twice for identical AI queries simply because you routed them to different model vendors? Today, we introduce Universal Prompt Caching directly within our unified API gateway architecture. This capability stores repeated prompt contexts across OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models, instantly returning stored results to eliminate redundant computation fees. When your application sends an LLM request, the gateway inspects the payload, identifies semantic matches, and returns accurate cached responses in under ten milliseconds. Engineering teams can now slash inference latency by eighty percent while dramatically reducing monthly token expenditures across diverse production deployments. You retain complete privacy control, flexible cache eviction policies, and granular metrics through a single dashboard. Update your routing settings today to accelerate overall system performance.
输出 2858 tok (+2718 思考) 延迟 14.1 s
GLM-5.1 通过 · 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.
输出 7589 tok (+7447 思考) 延迟 188.9 s
约束服从度（字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句）、文风指纹，以及长度控制。
只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换
两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点，相同的密钥，相同的请求结构。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="gemini-3.7-flash",
# model="glm-5.1", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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: "gemini-3.7-flash",
// model: "glm-5.1", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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": "gemini-3.7-flash",
# "model": "glm-5.1", # 取消注释此行，注释上一行
"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: "gemini-3.7-flash",
// Model: "glm-5.1", // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
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("gemini-3.7-flash")
// .model("glm-5.1") // 取消注释此行，注释上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常见问题
Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GLM-5.1 哪个更便宜？
在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面，Gemini 3.7 Flash 更便宜（$0.75 对比 $1.4，相差 1.9×）。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息，实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。
我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下，对 Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GLM-5.1 进行 A/B 测试吗？
可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务，并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串，因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。
Gemini 3.7 Flash 和 GLM-5.1 支持提示词缓存吗？
是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率，因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。