Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs GLM-4.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.95/100
Margin
1.2pts
winning →
55.12/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); GLM-4.6 #85 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and GLM-4.6 share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 3 to GLM-4.6.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
27
GLM-4.6 only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick GLM-4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GLM-4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.12 versus 53.95. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.6.

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 (High) and GLM-4.6
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)ΔGLM-4.6
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9Margin← 88.5GLM-4.63.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3MarginNo overlapGLM-4.6Not measured
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5MarginNo overlapGLM-4.6Not measured
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1MarginNo overlapGLM-4.6Not measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputGLM-4.6Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableGLM-4.6Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1MGLM-4.6200KDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 53.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 40.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 67.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%76.9%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 28.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 32.4%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1147—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
CodeforcesSource 2816.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 78.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.3%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 70.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 42.0%33.1%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 52.0%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —3.09%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
MRCR 1MSource 76.9%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 59.3%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 62.7%26.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
CritPtSource 3.4%0.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
MMLU-ProSource 86.4%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 28.9%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 73.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource 87.4%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.4%—Not comparable
HLESource 29.4%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.5%23.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.7%63.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-HLESource 27.8%5.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.3%-31.6%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 35.5%20.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 89.7%66.1%GLM-4.6 leads
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 91.9%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 85.1%—Not comparable
ApexSource 19.1%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 72.1%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —3.819%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —2.128%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1238—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)GLM-4.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%36.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.12 to 53.95.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or GLM-4.6?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 3.4. GLM-4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

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.