Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5 vs Step 3.5 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 35 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace GLM 5 Replace Step 3.5 Flash
GLM 5Z.ai
Coding
41.7
Overall
27.9
Output $/M
$3.20
34
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
17.0
Output $/M
$0.30
1
vs boards won of 35 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; Step 3.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Step 3.5 Flash has the edge where output tokens cost 10.7x less, and where the context window is larger, 262K against 205K tokens.

Model AGLM 5Z.ai41.7/1003 independent benchmarks$0.63 per solved taskModel BStep 3.5 FlashStepFunNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
35
GLM 5 only
40
Step 3.5 Flash only
0
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5 41.7 from 3 benchmarks, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 10.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: creative writing: GLM 5 1438 against Step 3.5 Flash 1357, 13.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5 $3.20 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 10.7x apart.
Context window
GLM 5 takes 205K tokens, Step 3.5 Flash 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5BarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding30
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning41
Math20
Knowledge40
General190
All shared boards341
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
SWE-bench Verified72.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev1435Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)71.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)23.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)43.2%32.6%GLM 5
Terminal-Bench52.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
WeirdML48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ALE-Bench765.6Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: coding14611436GLM 5
LMArena Text: software and IT14601434GLM 5
LMArena WebDev: React1424Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1450Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index27.917.0GLM 5
Epoch Capabilities Index145.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1123Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1136Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1153Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1144Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1148Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom98.2%94.4%GLM 5
Vending-Bench 2$4,432Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond83.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.0%83.1%Step 3.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)29.3%24.5%GLM 5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGI44.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
SimpleBench53.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14521411GLM 5
LMArena Text: expert14541421GLM 5
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14601421GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
AIME91.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: math14401408GLM 5
LMArena Text: mathematical work14511421GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)52.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)62.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)70.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)94.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text: science14601415GLM 5
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14551408GLM 5
LMArena Text: legal and government14531408GLM 5
LMArena Text: business and finance14301394GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1247Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1230Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1234Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1228Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1229Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1246Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1168Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1146Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index190
General benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
IFBench72.3%66.5%GLM 5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)75.7%63.0%GLM 5
CL-bench18.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5 measured
LMArena Text14461403GLM 5
LMArena Text: instruction following14281385GLM 5
LMArena Text: creative writing14381357GLM 5
LMArena Text: English14581417GLM 5
LMArena Text: non-English14301385GLM 5
LMArena Text: Chinese15111446GLM 5
LMArena Text: German14471405GLM 5
LMArena Text: Japanese14161353GLM 5
LMArena Text: Korean14231351GLM 5
LMArena Text: French14561421GLM 5
LMArena Text: Spanish14541419GLM 5
LMArena Text: Russian14361385GLM 5
LMArena Text: Polish14341389GLM 5
LMArena Text: multi-turn14561404GLM 5
LMArena Text: longer queries14461402GLM 5
LMArena Text: writing and language14371372GLM 5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14261360GLM 5
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkGLM 5Step 3.5 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 5$0.0026Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5$0.060Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0059Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5$0.232Exceeds the context window
Step 3.5 Flash$0.023Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 5 and Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5StepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerZ.aiStepFun
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 11, 2026January 29, 2026
Context window205K262K
Input $/Mtok$1.00$0.10
Output $/Mtok$3.20$0.30
Coding index41.7Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.63Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5 better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?

Only GLM 5 has a coding score, 41.7 on the Vibe Coding Index; Step 3.5 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Step 3.5 Flash has the edge where output tokens cost 10.7x less, and where the context window is larger, 262K against 205K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5 or Step 3.5 Flash?

GLM 5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5 or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5 vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Step 3.5 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next