Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash and GLM-5.1 share 9 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 27 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 9
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 13
- GLM-5.1 only
- 27
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.74 to 58.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-5.1's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 62 against 40.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 8.1% to 52.3%. DeepSeek V4 Flash does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GLM-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.40 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash. That is roughly 15.7x on output cost alone. GLM-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Δ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 | Margin→ 21.2 | GLM-5.162.0 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 | Margin→ 16.3 | GLM-5.165.4 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash38.8 | Margin→ 13.5 | GLM-5.152.3 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2 | Margin← 2.9 | GLM-5.161.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 8.1%B 52.3%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 44.2HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 8.1%; GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 40.8%B 82.6%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 41.8HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 40.8%; GLM-5.1 scored 82.6%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 49.1%B 63.5%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 14.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 49.1%B 58.4%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 9.3SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | GLM-5.1203K | DeepSeek V4 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGLM-5.1 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | 63.5% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 64% | 71.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 62.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 54.35% | 60.11% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 68% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 97.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 49.1% | 58.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 31.46% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 55.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 43.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.1 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 71.2% | 86.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| HLESource | 8.1% | 52.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 40.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 28.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 1.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 24.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
MathGLM-5.1 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 40.8% | 82.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 41.9% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 1.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 9.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.0% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 33.448% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 12.500% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1238 | 1305 | GLM-5.1 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 58.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 8.1% and 52.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 38.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.1?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 61.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 40.8. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 49.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.