Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash Base vs GLM-5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
GLM-5
Z.AI
66.06/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash Base unranked (Not scored); GLM-5 #28 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base and GLM-5 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash Base; 46 to GLM-5.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
DeepSeek V4 Flash Base only
21
GLM-5 only
46
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window; GLM-5 is the better fit if reasoning is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

DeepSeek V4 Flash Base and GLM-5 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

DeepSeek V4 Flash Base gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Flash Base and GLM-5
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseΔGLM-5
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Flash Base44.7Margin→ 16.1GLM-560.8
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash Base56.4Margin→ 10.0GLM-566.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-556.2
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-566.3
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-556.3
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-583.1
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapGLM-592.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash BaseB · GLM-5

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 46.5%B 66.8%
    Winner: GLM-5Δ 20.3
    SuperGPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash Base scored 46.5%; GLM-5 scored 66.8%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 68.3%B 85.7%
    Winner: GLM-5Δ 17.4
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash Base scored 68.3%; GLM-5 scored 85.7%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.

  3. LongBench v2

    Reasoning
    Source ↗
    A 44.7%B 60.8%
    Winner: GLM-5Δ 16.1
    LongBench v2: DeepSeek V4 Flash Base scored 44.7%; GLM-5 scored 60.8%. GLM-5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot availableGLM-5$1 input / $3.2 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot availableGLM-574 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot availableGLM-51.64 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash Base1MGLM-5200KDeepSeek V4 Flash Base lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —56.2%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —57.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —54.1%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —65.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —14.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —38%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —31.1%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —60.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —69.8%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —98.2%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —43.2%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —14.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —50.99%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
BigCodeBenchSource 56.8%—Not comparable
HumanEvalSource 69.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source —72.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —55.1%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73.3%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —62.8%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —74.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —46.2%Not comparable
ReasoningGLM-5 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
BBHSource 86.9%—Not comparable
DROPSource 88.6%—Not comparable
HellaSwagSource 85.7%—Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource 79.5%—Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource 82.2%—Not comparable
LongBench v2Source 44.7%60.8%GLM-5 leads
AI-NeedleSource —63.3%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —63.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource —2.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeGLM-5 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
AGIEvalSource 82.6%—Not comparable
MMLUSource 88.7%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 89.4%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 68.3%85.7%GLM-5 leads
MMMLUSource 88.8%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.1%—Not comparable
CMMLUSource 90.4%—Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource 42.2%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 30.1%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 46.5%66.8%GLM-5 leads
FACTS ParametricSource 33.9%—Not comparable
TriviaQASource 82.8%—Not comparable
GPQASource —86%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —86.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —85.8%Not comparable
HLESource —50.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.5%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —82.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —27.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —26.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —34.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
GSM8KSource 90.8%—Not comparable
MATHSource 57.4%—Not comparable
CMathSource 93.6%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —95.8%Not comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —97.5%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —96.9%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —86.4%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —82.5%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —16.434%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —2.100%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
MGSMSource 85.7%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —83.1%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —55.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1278Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGLM-5Result
IFEvalSource —92.6%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —72.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash Base or GLM-5?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Base and GLM-5 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash Base or GLM-5?

GLM-5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 56.4. Inside this category, SuperGPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, DeepSeek V4 Flash Base or GLM-5?

GLM-5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 60.8 versus 44.7. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.