Head-to-head
DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs GLM 5.1
Compare DeepSeek-V4-Pro and GLM 5.1 on the metrics that decide an agent workload.
| Metric | DeepSeek-V4-Pro | GLM 5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Fireworks AI | Fireworks AI |
| Input / 1M | $1.74 | $1.40 |
| Output / 1M | $3.48 | $4.40 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.14 (−92%) | $0.26 (−81%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $1.52 | $1.68 |
| Context | 1M | 203K |
| Cache capture | 81% | 83% |
| Warm TTFT | 130ms (−63%) | 130ms (−62%) |
| Quality index | 86 | 89 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Pick DeepSeek-V4-Pro when it is cheaper once prefix reuse is priced in, it carries the larger 1M context window.
Pick GLM 5.1 when it scores higher on the composite quality index, it captures more of the available reuse.
GLM 5.1 leads on quality while DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads on reuse-adjusted cost. Send latency- and budget-sensitive volume to DeepSeek-V4-Pro and reserve GLM 5.1 for the hard requests. Zumik's aliases route between them automatically under policy.
Frequently asked
DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs GLM 5.1, answered.
Is DeepSeek-V4-Pro or GLM 5.1 cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, DeepSeek-V4-Pro blends to about $1.52 per 1M tokens and GLM 5.1 to about $1.68. DeepSeek-V4-Pro is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro has the larger window: 1M vs 203K tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
GLM 5.1 shows higher measured cache capture (83% vs 81%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.