Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.6V

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

50.3

Rank #40 Confirmed

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

40.9

Rank #133 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 7 categories and GLM-4.6V in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 46.2 to 26.5.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
ProviderDeepSeekZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index50.340.9
Released2026-09-092025-12-08
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output393K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$0.90
Results tracked2512

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29), GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Coding15111390
LMArena WebDev1620—
SciCode51.9%—
ALE-Bench1,092—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39), GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Hard Prompts14851368
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
CritPt14.3%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA47%—
Surface Evolver Bench46.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.01—

Math Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52), GLM-4.6V: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1493—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97), GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Expert15051372

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Vision—1164

Multilingual DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29), GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Non-English14521359
LMArena Chinese15061426
LMArena Russian14731341
LMArena French1448—
LMArena Spanish1499—

Instruction Following DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24), GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Instruction Following14751351

Long Context DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46), GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Longer Query14761358

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43), GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashGLM-4.6V
LMArena Text14651377
LMArena Creative Writing14361347
LMArena Multi-Turn14601359
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1540—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than GLM-4.6V?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM-4.6V?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM-4.6V better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 40.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-4.6V share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper