DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 versus GLM-5.3-Flash
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (DeepSeek) and GLM-5.3-Flash (Zhipu AI (Z.ai)) compared point by point: measured performance, pricing, context and capabilities.
Data as of October 22, 2026
Side-by-side comparison
| Criterion | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Zhipu AI (Z.ai) |
| Released | August 13, 2026 | September 18, 2026 |
| Capability index | 72.2 / 100 | 71.9 / 100 |
| Input price | $0.66 | $0.30 |
| Output price | $1.98 | $1.05 |
| Cost of a typical task | $0.017 | $0.008 |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 393,216 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Reasoning mode | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Accepted inputs | text | text, image, video, PDF |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| Knowledge cutoff | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
The match-up at a glance
This comparison pits two open-weight models that you can install on your own servers against each other: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and GLM-5.3-Flash, one from DeepSeek, the other from Zhipu AI (Z.ai). The first dates from August 13, 2026, the second from September 18, 2026.
All figures below come from public sources checked on October 22, 2026: models.dev and OpenRouter for prices and capabilities, Epoch AI for scores.
Which one is more capable?
On our capability index, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 scores 72.2 out of 100 and GLM-5.3-Flash 71.9. The gap is too small to separate them.
On the 5 benchmarks reported for both, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 wins 3 times and GLM-5.3-Flash 2:
- GPQA Diamond (PhD-level science questions): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 91.7%, GLM-5.3-Flash 90.2%
- OTIS Mock AIME (competition mathematics problems): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 98.6%, GLM-5.3-Flash 93.9%
- FrontierMath (very hard research-level mathematics): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 64.6%, GLM-5.3-Flash 55.8%
- FrontierCode (advanced programming tasks): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 28.6%, GLM-5.3-Flash 31.8%
- APEX-Agents (professional tasks carried out by an agent): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 47.3%, GLM-5.3-Flash 52.8%
Budget
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 costs $0.66 per million input tokens and $1.98 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.30 and $1.05.
For a typical agent task (read 20,000 tokens, write 2,000), expect $0.017 with DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 versus $0.008 with GLM-5.3-Flash. GLM-5.3-Flash is 2.1 times cheaper, a gap that adds up quickly over 1,000 tasks: $9.09 difference.
Run the numbers with your own volumes in the agent cost calculator.
Context and capabilities
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 reads more in one go: 1,048,576 tokens of context (roughly 1,573 pages), versus 1,000,000 for GLM-5.3-Flash.
Reasoning mode: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 yes, GLM-5.3-Flash yes. Tool calling: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 yes, GLM-5.3-Flash yes. Image input: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 no, GLM-5.3-Flash yes.
Both publish their weights: you can host them yourself.
In short
Our reading of the data:
- Choose GLM-5.3-Flash for a lower cost and image input.
This verdict relies on public figures; it does not replace a trial on your own tasks.
Other comparisons
Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash: which is better?
On our index (Epoch AI data), DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 scores 72.2 and GLM-5.3-Flash 71.9 out of 100. The best choice also depends on price and on your use case.
Which one is cheaper?
GLM-5.3-Flash. To read 20,000 tokens and write 2,000, expect $0.017 with DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and $0.008 with GLM-5.3-Flash (prices as of October 22, 2026).
Which one has the larger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813, with 1,048,576 tokens versus 1,000,000.
Can I run DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or GLM-5.3-Flash on my own servers?
Yes, both publish their weights. Check each license before commercial use.
Data sources
- Models.dev — Model data: models.dev (open-source project)
- OpenRouter — Market prices cross-checked with OpenRouter
- Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub — Epoch AI, “AI Benchmarking Hub”, epoch.ai, CC BY 4.0
Data as of October 22, 2026
Report an error
Does a figure, a date or a fact look wrong? Tell us: every report is checked.