| Signal | Step 3.5 Flash | Delta | GLM 5 Turbo |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 66 | -8 | |
Pricing | 0 | -4 | |
Context window size | 86 | +2 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 80 | -5 | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
6
days higher
3
days
21
days higher
StepFun
Zhipu AI
Step 3.5 Flash saves you $295.00/month
That's $3540.00/year compared to GLM 5 Turbo at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Step 3.5 Flash | GLM 5 Turbo | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 67 | 68 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Rank | #75 | #71 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Quality Rank | #75 | #71 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Adoption Rank | #75 | #71 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 203K | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Pricing | $0.10/$0.30/M | $1.20/$4.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 67 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Benchmarks | 66 | 74 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Pricing | 0 | 4 | GLM 5 Turbo |
| Context window size | 86 | 84 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Step 3.5 Flash |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 85 | GLM 5 Turbo |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 67/100 (rank #75), placing it in the top 74% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 68/100 (rank #71), placing it in the top 76% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Step 3.5 Flash offers 92% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $6.00/month with Step 3.5 Flash vs $78.00/month with GLM 5 Turbo - a $72.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Step 3.5 Flash also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (68/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Step 3.5 Flash and GLM 5 Turbo are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.8999999999999915 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Step 3.5 Flash
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Step 3.5 Flash
92% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Step 3.5 Flash
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Step 3.5 Flash
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Step 3.5 Flash
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by StepFun
| Capability | Step 3.5 Flash | GLM 5 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
StepFun
Zhipu AI
Step 3.5 Flash saves you $6.42/month
That's 92% cheaper than GLM 5 Turbo at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Step 3.5 Flash | GLM 5 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 203K |
| Max Output Tokens | 65,536 | 131,072 |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Jan 29, 2026 | Mar 15, 2026 |
GLM 5 Turbo scores 68/100 (rank #71) compared to Step 3.5 Flash's 67/100 (rank #75), giving it a 1-point advantage. GLM 5 Turbo is the stronger overall choice, though Step 3.5 Flash may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Step 3.5 Flash is ranked #75 and GLM 5 Turbo is ranked #71 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.30/M output tokens vs GLM 5 Turbo's $4.00/M output tokens - 13.3x more expensive. Input token pricing: Step 3.5 Flash at $0.10/M vs GLM 5 Turbo at $1.20/M.
Step 3.5 Flash has a larger context window of 262,144 tokens compared to GLM 5 Turbo's 202,752 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.