Model comparison
GLM-4.5 vs Step 3.5 Flash
GLM-4.5 and Step 3.5 Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
StepFunSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.5 scores higher in 3 categories and Step 3.5 Flash in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5 leads 28.6 to 22.2.
- Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
- Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | StepFun |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2025-07-27 | 2026-01-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 256K |
| Max output | 98K | 256K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1434 | 1436 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 54.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 344.82 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.52 | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1429 | 1411 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 28.4% |
Math Step 3.5 Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1427 | 1408 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 66.8% |
Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1433 | 1421 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.3% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads
GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1447 |
| LMArena French | 1418 | 1421 |
| LMArena German | 1407 | 1405 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1354 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1352 |
| LMArena Russian | 1414 | 1385 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | 1419 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1385 |
Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1412 | 1402 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads
GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1430 | 1403 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1395 | 1357 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1415 | 1405 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1343 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5 better than Step 3.5 Flash?
GLM-4.5 and Step 3.5 Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.
Is GLM-4.5 or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (41.4 vs 42.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Step 3.5 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5 and Step 3.5 Flash share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.