gemma4:31b
Checking current pricing…
Chat comparison
gemma4:31bvsGLM-5.3-Flash
Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.
Current pricing
See the cost difference clearly
GLM-5.3-Flash
Checking current pricing…
What's different
Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.
Context window
gemma4:31b
262,000 tokens
GLM-5.3-FlashBetter fit
400,000 tokens
JSON mode
gemma4:31bBetter fit
Supported
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not supported
Reasoning
gemma4:31b
Not supported
GLM-5.3-FlashBetter fit
Supported
Latest LLM7 statistics
Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.
Recent stability
gemma4:31b
99.34%
GLM-5.3-Flash
82.77%
Average response time
gemma4:31b
6,639.07 ms
GLM-5.3-Flash
29,977.45 ms
P95 API latency
gemma4:31b
30,000 ms
GLM-5.3-Flash
60,000 ms
Side-by-side trends
Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.
Request success rate
Both models on the same scale
gemma4:31b: 100%GLM-5.3-Flash: 86%
Average API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemma4:31b: 6,970 msGLM-5.3-Flash: 23,005 ms
P95 API latency
Both models on the same scale
gemma4:31b: 30,000 msGLM-5.3-Flash: 60,000 ms
Estimate your workload
Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.
Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…
Quick take
- GLM-5.3-Flash has a larger context window.
- gemma4:31b recorded higher recent LLM7 stability during this period.
- gemma4:31b recorded a lower observed p95 API latency on LLM7 during this period.