Compare AI models: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GLM-5.2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeekHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
- GLM-5.2Zhipu
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | 56/100 | 100/100 | 68/100 | 81/100 | 33/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
| GLM-5.2 | 100/100 | 100/100 | 31/100 | 81/100 | 0/100 | 88/100 |
Overview
Author
Context length
1M
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text, Image
Text
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$0.15/ 1M
$1.40/ 1M
Output
$0.60/ 1M
$4.40/ 1M
Cached input
$0.003/ 1M
$0.26/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
3.4K
207K
Completed sessions
28,614
650,266
Token share
0.01%
0.09%
Tokens
70B+100%
932B-87%
AUG 25OCT 19
AUG 25OCT 19
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
56.7%16K user-weeks
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Jamba MiniDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017·Jamba MiniNearby alternativeGLM-5.2 vs Jamba MiniGLM-5.2·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Jamba LargeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017·Jamba LargeRelated comparisonGLM-5.2 vs Jamba LargeGLM-5.2·Jamba Large