Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.10 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $0.40 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.01 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.05Google AI Studio | $0.0632Relace |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.20Google AI Studio | $1.505Inceptron |
| $40.00Google list price | $141Wafer · fp4 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 72% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 42.6% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 66.9% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | — | 41.82% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 28.3% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 88.2% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 84.5% |
ExploitBenchCybersecurity — A 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 54.4% |
ExploitGym · 6-hour budgetCybersecurity — Can an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 6-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 130 |
ExploitGym · 2-hour budgetCybersecurity — Can an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 2-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 105 |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 62.5% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 28.5% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 48.2% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1769 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Z.ai | |
| Release date | Jun 17 2025 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5GLM-5.3vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-5.3vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark OpenGLM-5.3vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7GLM-5.3vsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GLM-5.3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4GLM-5.3vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and GLM-5.3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GLM-5.3. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite shipped 423 days before GLM-5.3, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite) vs 1M (GLM-5.3). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is closed, while GLM-5.3 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and GLM-5.3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.