GPT-5.4 minivsGLM-5.3-Flash
GPT-5.4 mini | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 320B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 400k | 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. | $0.75 | — |
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. | $4.50 | — |
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. | $0.075 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.75Azure | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $4.50Azure | — |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | 32% | — |
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. | — | 63.4% |
Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase coding — Supabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 81.8% | — |
Supabase Evals · no skillsSupabase coding — The same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 63.6% | — |
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. | — | 84.3% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 36% | — |
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. | — | 55.3% |
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. | — | 26.3% |
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. | — | 48.8% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1773 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | Mar 17 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.4 mini and GLM-5.3-Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5.4 mini has a verified first-party API price: $0.75 per million input tokens and $4.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GLM-5.3-Flash. GPT-5.4 mini shipped 162 days before GLM-5.3-Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5.4 mini) vs 1M (GLM-5.3-Flash). GPT-5.4 mini is proprietary, while GLM-5.3-Flash is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5.4 mini and GLM-5.3-Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
GPT-5.4 mini was released by OpenAI on Mar 17 2026.
GLM-5.3-Flash was released by Z.ai on Aug 26 2026.
Only GPT-5.4 mini has a verified first-party API price: $0.75 per million input tokens and $4.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GLM-5.3-Flash. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
GPT-5.4 mini has a 400k context window; GLM-5.3-Flash has 1M.
GPT-5.4 mini is a proprietary model released by OpenAI. GLM-5.3-Flash is an open weight model released by Z.ai.