Compare / DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs GLM-5V-Turbo
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs GLM-5V-Turbo
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 34 results on 2 sources that measured both models.
Of the 34 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63). See also DeepSeek vs Z.ai, every model from both labs.
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or GLM-5V-Turbo? The short answer
Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 44 against 10) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 44, GLM-5V-Turbo 10 (out of 100; how the score works).
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.007 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.5 times less).
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 45.1 against 23.5.
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is newer: released 17 Oct 2026, against 1 Apr 2026 for GLM-5V-Turbo.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 does better for product listings.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 does better for reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 | GLM-5V-Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $1.20 out | $1.20 in · $4.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.52 | $1.90 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.002 | $0.007 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.006 cached input | – |
| Intelligence Index | 45.1 | 23.5 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 44 | 10 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 212 | – |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 202,752 tokens |
| Released | 17 Oct 2026 (newer) | 1 Apr 2026 |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | China |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 | GLM-5V-Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.0015 | $0.0070 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 19 · 23 of 24 measured | 21.4% | 1.8% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 21 · 21 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 16 · 88 of 249 measured | 45.1max reasoning | 23.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 27 · 124 of 248 measured | 43.3%max reasoning | 17.1% |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 19 · 112 of 239 measured | 82.7%max reasoning | 70.3% |
Show all 34 results (28 more)
| Measure | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 | GLM-5V-Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 23 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 98.3% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 19 · 19 of 24 measured | 1.2% | 1.2% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 12 of 24 measured | 2.4% | 0.6% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 19 · 23 of 24 measured | 1.2% | 11.5% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 23 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 28.9% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 20 · 24 of 24 measured | 95.3% | 63.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 19 · 24 of 24 measured | 94.8% | 16.8% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 18 · 24 of 24 measured | 94.9% | 61.0% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 32.1% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 82.1% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 10 · 24 of 24 measured | 93.7% | 59.6% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 13 · 21 of 24 measured | 1.7% | 3.8% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 5 · 12 of 24 measured | 3.6% | 5.4% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 7 · 2 of 24 measured | 2.4% | 1.8% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 19 · 24 of 24 measured | 40.5% | 10.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 21 · 24 of 24 measured | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 3 · 22 of 24 measured | 6.70 | 62.3 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 21 · 23 of 24 measured | 1.70 | 2.49 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 20 · 23 of 24 measured | 44.6% | 55.4% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 22 · 9 of 24 measured | 4.01 | 1.31 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 23 · 6 of 24 measured | 85.7% | 17.9% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 13 · 2 of 24 measured | 17.9% | 13.1% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 1 of 24 measured | 22.0% | 3.6% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 2 · 3 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 1.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 3 · 3 of 24 measured | 1.2% | 1.2% |
Compare them with other models
- DeepSeek vs Z.aiEvery model from both labs, best against best
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Muse Spark 1.3Fastest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- GLM-5V-Turbo vs Muse Spark 1.3Most intelligent at $1–3 per million tokens
- GLM-5V-Turbo vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 better than GLM-5V-Turbo?
Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 44 against 10) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or GLM-5V-Turbo?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.007 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.5 times less).
Which is better for product listings, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or GLM-5V-Turbo?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 21 of 24 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 23 for GLM-5V-Turbo.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or GLM-5V-Turbo?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 22 of 202 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 100 for GLM-5V-Turbo.
Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or GLM-5V-Turbo?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017: 1,048,576 tokens, against 202,752 for GLM-5V-Turbo.
Run DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and GLM-5V-Turbo on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.