DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 FlashVSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-4.5
Our Take
While these models specialize in different coding tasks: DeepSeek V4 Flash is suited for complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning, while GLM-4.5 excels at multi-file code and clearly defined tasks, they share very similar reasoning capabilities. DeepSeek V4 Flash is the smarter buy here as it offers the same level of performance while being 5.7x cheaper than GLM-4.5.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Evaluation: DeepSeek V4 Flash was evaluated on SWE-bench Pro (scoring 49.1%), while GLM-4.5 was evaluated on SWE-bench Verified (scoring 64.2%).
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 80%, while GLM-4.5 scored 79.9%.
Cost Ratio: GLM-4.5 blended CPM is 5.7x higher than DeepSeek V4 Flash.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
49.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.1%)
80%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)5.7x cheaper
$0.17Input: $0.14 | Output: $0.28Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GLM-4.5
DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper than GLM-4.5. DeepSeek V4 Flash has a blended cost of $0.17/1M tokens, which is about 5.7x cheaper than GLM-4.5 at $1.00/1M tokens.
For coding tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash scores 49.1% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning), while GLM-4.5 scores 64.2% on swe-bench-verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for DeepSeek V4 Flash and GLM-4.5.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.