Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

Updated October 10, 2026. Rank says DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public point estimate, 63.77 versus 57.36. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 14 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
DeepSeek logo

DeepSeek

63.77/100

Estimated · Public rank #40

Conditional range 49.4–78.1

Model B
Z.AI logo

Z.AI

57.36/100

Estimated · Public rank #55

Conditional range 47.6–67.1

Shared results
14
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 only
27
GLM-5.3-Flash only
7
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8
Estimated: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and GLM-5.3-Flash. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    GLM-5.3-Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 49.3 to 48.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    GLM-5.3-Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher public agentic point estimate, 55.7 to 52.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

48.1DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.3GLM-5.3-Flash

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
52.2
Supported · #42/123
GLM-5.3-Flash
55.7
Supported · #34/123
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 6 public rows
Reading
GLM-5.3-Flash leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
48.1
Supported · #46/146
GLM-5.3-Flash
49.3
Supported · #42/146
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 8 public rows
Reading
GLM-5.3-Flash leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Directional only
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
63.6
Estimated · #38/177
GLM-5.3-Flash
60.5
Supported · #43/177
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
60.7
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
GLM-5.3-Flash
81.1
#11/28
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
GLM-5.3-Flash
84.0
#14/54
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
80.7
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.0033
Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.07788
Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.0748
Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

$0.044 per 1M cached input tokens

DeepSeek: Models & Pricing

GLM-5.3-Flash

No comparable hosted API rate

GLM-5.3-Flash model card

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Reasoning

GLM-5.3-Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Open Weight

GLM-5.3-Flash

Open Weight

License

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Open Weight

GLM-5.3-Flash

Open Weight

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

2026-08-13

GLM-5.3-Flash

2026-08-26

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public point estimate, 63.77 versus 57.36. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public point estimate, 63.77 versus 57.36. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 49.3 to 48.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 55.7 to 52.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence48 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash84.3%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081360.0%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash55.3%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081373.6%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081351.8%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081374.1%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash78.4%
    Source

    GLM-5.3-Flash leads this result

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081325.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash26.3%
    Source

    GLM-5.3-Flash leads this result

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081331.8%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash48.8%
    Source

    GLM-5.3-Flash leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081354.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash62.9%
    Source

    GLM-5.3-Flash leads this result

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081393.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 08133206.0
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081380.6%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081355.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081376.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.93%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash84.3%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash56.3%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • DeepSWE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash63.4%
    Source

    GLM-5.3-Flash leads this result

  • DSBench-FullStack

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081371.1%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081359.0%
    GLM-5.3-Flash57.3%

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash80.5%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081396.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash92.0%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • FrontierSWE v2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash18.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash17.7 fixes
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.0%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.00%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash62.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash89.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash78.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    GLM-5.3-Flash80.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081384.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081342.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081392.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash86.4%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.0%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash86.1%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081395.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081389.8%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081338.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

48 public results · 14 shared

Watch DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 10, 2026