Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Stepfun-ai
vs
Z-ai

Step 3.5 Flash vs GLM 4 32B

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode

GLM 4 32B wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
Price Advantage
GLM 4 32B
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Step 3.5 Flash
Speed
Step 3.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureStep 3.5 FlashGLM 4 32B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyStep 3.5 FlashGLM 4 32B
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorStepfun-aiZ-ai
ReleasedJan 2026Jul 2025

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

GLM 4 32B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Compare GLM 4 32B with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Step 3.5 Flash has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. GLM 4 32B has cheaper output pricing at $0.10/M tokens.
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 31.6, compared to GLM 4 32B's score of N/A.
Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window, while GLM 4 32B has a 128,000 token context window.
Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision. GLM 4 32B does not support vision.