Skip to content

Step 3.5 Flash vs GLM 5

Step 3.5 Flash

StepFun

40#349
vs
GLM 5

Zhipu AI

68#138
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalStep 3.5 FlashDeltaGLM 5
Capabilities
50
-17
67
Pricing
100
+3
97
Context window size
86
+2
84
Recency
82
-2
84
Output Capacity
77
-5
82
Benchmarks
0
-69
69
Overall Result
2 wins
of 6
4 wins
GLM 5 wins 4 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (38 data points)
Step 3.5 FlashGLM 5
Step 3.5 Flash

40

current score

Leader

GLM 5

right now

GLM 5

68.3

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Step 3.5 Flash

StepFun

Best Value
Per request$0.000250
Daily$0.83
Monthly$25.00
Annual$300.00

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.002600
Daily$8.67
Monthly$260.00
Annual$3120.00

Step 3.5 Flash saves you $235.00/month

That's $2820.00/year compared to GLM 5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

90% cheaper
Choose Step 3.5 Flash for cost optimization

Step 3.5 Flash pricing:
Input:$0.10/M tokens
Output:$0.30/M tokens
GLM 5 pricing:
Input:$1.00/M tokens
Output:$3.20/M tokens
Step 3.5 Flash

StepFun

40

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5

Zhipu AI

68

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricStep 3.5 FlashGLM 5Winner
Overall Score
40
68
GLM 5
Rank#349#138
GLM 5
Quality Rank#349#138
GLM 5
Adoption Rank#349#138
GLM 5
Parameters------
Context Window262K205K
Step 3.5 Flash
Pricing$0.10/$0.30/M$1.00/$3.20/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
50
67
GLM 5
Pricing
100
97
Step 3.5 Flash
Context window size
86
84
Step 3.5 Flash
Recency
82
84
GLM 5
Output Capacity
77
82
GLM 5
Benchmarks--
69
GLM 5
Benchmark Head-to-Head(1 benchmarks)
Step 3.5: 0GLM 5: 0
Step 3.5
GLM 5
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
-86%
Benchmark Interpretation

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%). Learn more about our methodology.

Step 3.5 FlashEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #349), placing it in the top -20% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5Competitive

Scores 68/100 (rank #138), placing it in the top 53% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

GLM 5 has a 28-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Step 3.5 Flash when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose GLM 5 when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Step 3.5 FlashBest Value
Input cost$0.10/M tokens
Output cost$0.30/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.010
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$6.00
GLM 5
Input cost$1.00/M tokens
Output cost$3.20/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.061
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$63.00

Step 3.5 Flash offers 90% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $6.00/month with Step 3.5 Flash vs $63.00/month with GLM 5 - a $57.00 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Step 3.5 FlashFaster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5
Speed score0/100

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.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Step 3.5 Flash

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Step 3.5 Flash also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Step 3.5 Flash

Long document analysis

Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Step 3.5 Flash

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Step 3.5 Flash

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (68/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GLM 5
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5

GLM 5 clearly outperforms Step 3.5 Flash with a significant 28.299999999999997-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5 is the stronger choice. However, Step 3.5 Flash may still excel in niche scenarios.

by StepFun

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 90% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
GLM 5
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityStep 3.5 FlashGLM 5
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Modediffers
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Step 3.5 Flash

StepFun

Best Value
$0.5400
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

$5.64
estimated monthly cost

Step 3.5 Flash saves you $5.10/month

That's 90% cheaper than GLM 5 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.

Parameters & Context
ParameterStep 3.5 FlashGLM 5
Context Window262K205K
Max Output Tokens65,536131,072
Open SourceYesYes
CreatedJan 29, 2026Feb 11, 2026
Last updated: 58m ago

相关对比

Step 3.5 Flash vs GLM 5 (2026) | LM Market Cap