GLM-5.3 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)
GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) are within three points on the Models at Work leaderboard, which we treat as a tie (81 vs 80). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) is about 4.1× cheaper per blended million tokens ($0.52 vs $2.15).
| GLM-5.3 · Z.ai | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) · DeepSeek | |
|---|---|---|
| Leaderboard rank | #5 | #9 |
| Score (0–100) | 81 | 80 |
| Tier | Open weights | Fast and cheap |
| Price per 1M tokens | $1.40 in · $4.40 out | $0.30 in · $1.20 out |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 45 | 45 |
| Arena Text score | 1478 (rank 27) | — |
| Scale SWE-Bench Pro V2 (mini-swe-agent) | 84.30% | — |
| Scale MCP Atlas | 84.20 | — |
| Arena WebDev score | 1622 (rank 22) | — |
| Best for | Agentic coding in Claude Code / Pi-style harnesses, Security research and code auditing, Self-hosted frontier-ish reasoning | Cheap coding tiers, Bulk generation, Experiments where data residency is not a constraint |
Compare source-qualified API rates and a monthly workload example before estimating your bill.
Choose GLM-5.3 if…
- you need agentic coding in claude code / pi-style harnesses
- you need security research and code auditing
- you need self-hosted frontier-ish reasoning
The open model people actually ship coding agents on. Same 744B base as GLM-5.2 with heavy agentic post-training; drops into Claude Code harnesses and holds its own on SWE-Bench Pro V2 and MCP Atlas at a third of frontier prices.
Caveats: License is muddled: AA lists a custom 'GLM-5.3 License' with commercial restrictions while Arena lists MIT. Read it before you self-host. Permissive on offensive-security tasks; that is a feature for red teams and a governance problem for everyone else. Open weights shipped ~2 weeks after the API; HN worried the public weights were safety-tuned differently.
Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) if…
- you need cheap coding tiers
- you need bulk generation
- you need experiments where data residency is not a constraint
Now measured: 45 on the Artificial Analysis index at 227 tokens/s and open weights, the fastest model near the top of the board.
Caveats: Weights are MIT-licensed on Hugging Face per DeepSeek; the 1017 snapshot's Terminal-Bench 4.0 figure is DeepSeek's own and is not counted. One independent index so far (Artificial Analysis 45, max setting); no Arena or Scale entry yet. Off-peak and peak pricing differ; the cheap numbers are off-peak. Read data-handling terms before enterprise use.
What practitioners say
GLM-5.3: One of the biggest HN launches of the year (1,171 points, 584 comments). Practitioners report it 'fits Claude Code as its own, zero issues', that '$5 in tokens' of Claude work costs '$0.50' on GLM via Pi, and that it 'routinely finds bugs missed by Fable and Sol' in audits. The cyber angle was the controversy: users bragged about adapting kernel exploits that 'Claude and Opus outright refused', and others flagged the risk of nerfed public weights.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017): The 1,067-point HN thread on the earlier Flash release said the price is real and the coding gap to Opus is also real; nothing newer read this run, so sentiment is unscored.
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.3 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)?
GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) are within three points on the Models at Work leaderboard, which we treat as a tie (81 vs 80). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) is about 4.1× cheaper per blended million tokens ($0.52 vs $2.15).
When should I choose GLM-5.3 over DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)?
Choose GLM-5.3 for agentic coding in claude code / pi-style harnesses, security research and code auditing, self-hosted frontier-ish reasoning. The open model people actually ship coding agents on. Same 744B base as GLM-5.2 with heavy agentic post-training; drops into Claude Code harnesses and holds its own on SWE-Bench Pro V2 and MCP Atlas at a third of frontier prices.
When should I choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) over GLM-5.3?
Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) for cheap coding tiers, bulk generation, experiments where data residency is not a constraint. Now measured: 45 on the Artificial Analysis index at 227 tokens/s and open weights, the fastest model near the top of the board.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017)?
GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens on Z.ai's list price (Z.ai Pricing, read Oct 19, 2026). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens on DeepSeek's list price (DeepSeek API pricing, read Oct 19, 2026).
Scores come from the Models at Work leaderboard: Score is 0 to 100 and computed, not typed: 55% independent evals (Artificial Analysis, Arena, Scale SEAL, Epoch, each scaled against its natural floor and the best score in this table, then averaged), 15% blended price on a fixed log scale ($0.05 per million is 100, $60 is 0), 15% practitioner sentiment from Signals and community threads, 15% operational fit (context window, open weights). A missing component drops out and the rest are reweighted. A model with no independent eval yet is provisional and ranks below every measured one. Within three points is a tie. Vendor-published figures are labelled and never counted. Prices are vendor list prices where published; blended figures assume three input tokens per output token.