Head-to-head
GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
A 0.3-point composite gap — but the real story is the dimension mix. Same weights, unpacked: who leads where, and whether the premium is justified.
The short answer
The composites differ by 0.3 points, and their strengths do not overlap.
Stronger overall: effectively tied. If you only run one workload, read the dimension table instead.
Overlaid radar
Same weights, same scale; overlap means parity
- GLM-5.3-Flash93.7
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash93.4
Dimension deltas
A on the left, B on the right; 100 max per row
GLM-5.3-Flash leads 4, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads 3, tied 1.
Spec sheet
Hard specs in one table
| Item | GLM-5.3-Flash | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Composite | 93.7 | 93.4 |
| Tier | S | S |
| Visual perception & grounding | 95 | 95 |
| Document parsing & Chinese OCR | 96 | 97WIN |
| Chart & document reasoning | 93 | 95WIN |
| Video & long-horizon reasoning | 90 | 91WIN |
| GUI agents & tool use | 94WIN | 93 |
| Generation & editing | 86WIN | 82 |
| Chinese context & culture | 94WIN | 90 |
| Ecosystem, cost & availability | 98WIN | 95 |
| Output price | ¥3 / M | ¥0.6 / M |
| Context | 200K | 128K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed (distilled lightweight) | Undisclosed (MoE, ~8B active) |
| Licence | Commercial + on-prem licence (Ascend images included) | Open weights (MIT) |
| Native multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Evidence grade | B | B |
How to choose
Choose GLM-5.3-Flash if…
- Domestic-chip projects on a tight budget
- Document batches and receipt extraction
- Lightweight agents and tool orchestration
- You cannot accept its limitation: Video 90 and generation 86: neither long-video QA nor creative generation is its scenario.
How to choose
Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash if…
- High-volume receipt, contract and scan structuring
- Cost baseline and control group for document pipelines
- Commercial on-prem work that needs an MIT licence
- You cannot accept its limitation: 128K context is the smallest in tier S; whole manuals still need chunking.
Scenario check
Five scenarios, who holds up
| Scenario | GLM-5.3-Flash | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Better |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese receipt OCR | 95 | 95 | Tie |
| Chart data extraction | 92 | 95 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| 30-min video QA | 88 | 91 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| Mobile GUI control | 93 | 93 | Tie |
| Chinese cultural context | 94 | 90 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
Comparison FAQ
GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: which is stronger?
Composite: GLM-5.3-Flash 93.7, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 93.4. GLM-5.3-Flash leads on GUI agents & tool use, Generation & editing, Chinese context & culture, Ecosystem, cost & availability; DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads on Document parsing & Chinese OCR, Chart & document reasoning, Video & long-horizon reasoning. The stronger overall is effectively tied.
How much more expensive is GLM-5.3-Flash than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is ¥3/1M output tokens; DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is ¥0.6/1M. On output price, GLM-5.3-Flash is pricier; real cost also depends on image tokens and input share.
Can DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash replace GLM-5.3-Flash?
It depends on your primary workload. If it sits in DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash’s strengths (High-volume receipt, contract and scan structuring, Cost baseline and control group for document pipelines, Commercial on-prem work that needs an MIT licence), yes. If you need Domestic-chip projects on a tight budget, switching will cost quality.
Personal ranking · Not an official score
Every ranking, score and comparison on this page is an independent personal ranking, not an official score, and represents no vendor, institution or regulator. Scores are a subjective mapping of public evidence under our own weights — change the weights and the order changes. Disagree, or spotted a factual error? Contact the site owner: jizhi2024@foxmail.com — we check each report and log corrections in the changelog.