# DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash

> DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-glm-4-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 66.7 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 52.8 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 38 | 180 |
| Context | 1M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $0.06 |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1506 | 1383 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1619 | — |
| SciCode | 51.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,092 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 39.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 19.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1483 | 1356 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 89.6% | — |
| CritPt | 14.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 47% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 46.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.9 | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1355 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 67.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.8% | 60.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1506 | 1357 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |

## Multimodal

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1277 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 34.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1330 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1497 | 1403 |
| LMArena French | 1452 | 1332 |
| LMArena German | 1484 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1452 | 1283 |
| LMArena Russian | 1471 | 1332 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1459 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1474 | 1327 |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1475 | 1345 |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1540 | 1125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1457 | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash lists at $0.15 and $0.60.

### Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.9 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.