DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GLM 5.3 Flash

Overall
56
vs
Overall
35

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is clearly better. It wins 58 of the 75 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 spends 1.9× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
5626.0s
5.3K, 91% thinking2.8K, 89% thinking
3555.5s
Agents
5826.7s
3.3K, 71% thinking607, 81% thinking
1037.0s
Structured Extraction
8117.2s
4.2K, 93% thinking2.7K, 93% thinking
4847.2s
Coding
4840.8s
9.4K, 95% thinking5.3K, 83% thinking
541m 52s
Grounded Answers
7119.8s
4.4K, 91% thinking2.9K, 93% thinking
3756.8s
Instruction Following
7625.6s
5.5K, 91% thinking2K, 77% thinking
4340.8s
Business Logic
6726.6s
6.6K, 97% thinking5.8K, 98% thinking
331m 18s
Security & permissions
4826.6s
4.7K, 87% thinking963, 81% thinking
5525.2s
Diagnosis & investigation
020.2s
3.2K, 74% thinking563, 63% thinking
027.0s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
243 tok/s (better)
60 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M
1M
Cost per run
$0.75
$0.19 (better)
Cost per case
$0.0049
$0.0013 (better)
Time per case
26.0s (better)
55.5s
Quantization
—
FP8
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GLM 5.3 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run5635

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

58 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101717 won by GLM 5.3 Flash78 tied