GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteVSZ.ai (Zhipu AI)GLM-4.5
Our Take
We recommend GLM-4.5 if you need peak intelligence for reasoning and coding tasks, or the 5.7x cheaper Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite to optimize your budget for high-volume pipelines. While GLM-4.5 holds a clear performance lead, it carries a heavy price premium. Choose GLM-4.5 for complex logic, or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite for budget efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Verified benchmark. GLM-4.5 scored 64.2%, while Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scored 41.3%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. GLM-4.5 scored 79.9%, while Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite scored 62.5%.
Cost Efficiency: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite pricing ($0.1/M input, $0.4/M output) is 5.7x cheaper than GLM-4.5 ($0.6/M input, $2.2/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)
41.3%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
62.5%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)5.7x cheaper
$0.17Input: $0.10 | Output: $0.40Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-verified)Winner (+22.9%)
64.2%multi-file code and clearly defined tasks
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+17.4%)
79.9%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$1.00Input: $0.60 | Output: $2.20Context Window
131.07k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs GLM-4.5
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper than GLM-4.5. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has a blended cost of $0.17/1M tokens, which is about 5.7x cheaper than GLM-4.5 at $1.00/1M tokens.
GLM-4.5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.2% on swe-bench-verified (multi-file code and clearly defined tasks) compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite which scores 41.3%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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.