DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs GLM-5.1
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
DeepSeek-V4-Flash is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 55 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- MathCompetition and research-level math30DeepSeek-V4-Flash3 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking31DeepSeek-V4-Flash3 of 4 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software43DeepSeek-V4-Flash4 of 8 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10DeepSeek-V4-Flash1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10DeepSeek-V4-Flash1 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own33Even3 each
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each · 1 tie
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash costs 70% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where DeepSeek-V4-Flash pulls ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+25.8points ahead
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+20.7points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+16.9points ahead
Where GLM-5.1 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+61.8points ahead
- Finds the root cause of IT system incidentsAA IT-Bench SRE+8.8points ahead
- Common-sense trick questionsSimpleBench+8.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 55 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- Terminal-Bench 2.1DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 16.978.761.8+16.9
- LMArena · WebDevGLM-5.1 by 78 rating points14301508+78 rating
- Terminal-Bench HardGLM-5.1 by 7.635.643.2+7.6
- SWE-bench ProGLM-5.1 by 5.852.658.4+5.8
- SciCodeDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 5.550.344.8+5.5
- LiveCodeBench v6DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 4.990.685.7+4.9
- SWE-bench VerifiedDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 2.87976.2+2.8
- SWE-bench Multilingualtie73.373.3tie
AgentsEven
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 25.839.413.6+25.8
- GDPValDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 15.946.931+15.9
- Terminal-Bench 4.0DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 10.112.12+10.1
- AA IT-Bench SREGLM-5.1 by 8.831.540.3+8.8
- BrowseCompGLM-5.1 by 6.173.279.3+6.1
- MCP AtlasGLM-5.1 by 2.86971.8+2.8
ReasoningDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- CritPtDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 1216.64.6+12
- SimpleBenchGLM-5.1 by 8.846.355.1+8.8
- Humanity's Last ExamDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 8.538.630.1+8.5
- GPQA DiamondDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 490.886.8+4
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.1 by 61.88.370.1+61.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 16.740.423.7+16.7
- SimpleQA Verifiedtie34.134tie
MathDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 20.757.536.8+20.7
- HMMT Feb. 2026DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 12.294.882.6+12.2
- IMOAnswerBenchDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 4.688.483.8+4.6
- AIME 2026tie95.895.3tie
Following instructionsDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- IFBenchDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 2.979.276.3+2.9
Other results28 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- DeepSWEDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 36.454.418+36.4
- ToolathlonDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 29.670.340.7+29.6
- Apex (Pass@1)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 21.53311.5+21.5
- AA Agentic IndexDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 16.541.725.2+16.5
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.1 by 15.2-14.30.8+15.2
- GDPval-AA (Elo)GLM-5.1 by 140 rating points13951535+140 rating
- Apex Shortlist (Pass@1)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 13.385.772.4+13.3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 13.369.155.8+13.3
- Terminal-Bench 2.0GLM-5.1 by 12.156.969+12.1
- NL2RepoDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 11.554.242.7+11.5
- Apex-Shortlist (no tools)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 11.382.471.1+11.3
- ProfBench (Search)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 115746+11
- PinchBenchDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 10.191.381.2+10.1
- AA IntelligenceDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 8.234.326.1+8.2
- CyberGymDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 876.768.7+8
- HLE (with tools)GLM-5.1 by 7.245.152.3+7.2
- CritPt (no tools)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 6.910.63.7+6.9
- TauBench V3 - RetailDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 589.184.1+5
- TauBench V3 - AirlineGLM-5.1 by 4.280.885+4.2
- TauBench V3 - AverageDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 473.769.7+4
- Apex-Shortlist (with tools)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 38279+3
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GLM-5.1 by 2.79597.7+2.7
- GPQA (unspecified)DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 2.488.586.1+2.4
- Vals.ai Financial Agent 1.1 - without web searchGLM-5.1 by 1.858.460.2+1.8
- IMOAnswerBench (with tools)GLM-5.1 by 1.589.691.1+1.5
- Vals.ai Financial Agent 1.1 - with web searchtie60.160.7tie
- SciCode (subtask)tie48.247.7tie
- MMLU-Protie86.286tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, DeepSeek-V4-Flash or GLM-5.1?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, math, long documents and following instructions. GLM-5.1 wins none. They are level on agents and facts.
Which is better for coding?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash. It wins 4 of the 8 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.1 wins 3, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash costs $0.44 per million input tokens and $1.32 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 costs $1.38 and $4.40. That makes DeepSeek-V4-Flash about 70% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 55 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 27 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 28 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.