DeepSeek V4 Flash preview vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Side-by-side comparison using current list prices and the live leaderboard.
Verdict
GLM 5.3 Flash is 15% cheaper per input token.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash preview is #98 on the LMRank leaderboard; GLM 5.3 Flash is not ranked yet.
- GLM 5.3 Flash is 15% cheaper per input token ($0.04 vs $0.047 per 1M).
- GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger context window (1.3M vs 1M tokens).
At a Glance
| Attribute | DeepSeek V4 Flash preview | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Lab | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Leaderboard rank | #98 | Not ranked yet |
| Tags | Coding Intelligent Fast Open Weight | Long Context Coding Intelligent Fast Agentic |
| Context | 1M tokens | 1.3M tokens |
| Input price | $0.05/1M | $0.04/1M |
| Output price | $0.09/1M | $0.50/1M |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, image, and video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
DeepSeek V4 Flash preview: strengths
- 10x KV cache efficiency vs V3.2
- 1,048,576 token context window
- Three reasoning modes: Non-Think, Think High, Think Max
- MIT license allows commercial use
- Cost-effective at $0.10 input / $0.20 output per M tokens
GLM 5.3 Flash: strengths
- Low-cost model for coding and agent tasks
- 1.31M-token context window
- Hybrid sparse and linear attention architecture
DeepSeek V4 Flash preview: weaknesses
- Chinese training bias affects non-Chinese tasks
- Weaker than V4 Pro on complex reasoning and knowledge
- Tends towards verbosity in outputs
- Text-only; no multimodal support
GLM 5.3 Flash: weaknesses
- Flash tier trades capability for lower cost
- New release with limited public evaluation
DeepSeek V4 Flash preview: best for
- High-throughput chat applications
- Coding and code generation
- Agentic tasks and tool use
- Cost-sensitive production deployment
GLM 5.3 Flash: best for
- Budget coding assistants
- Long-context agents
- High-volume automation