Free to start

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and GLM 4.7 Flash. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite has the larger context window. Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes and the lower measured p50 time to first token.

$1.84625/1MGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite cheapest route

$0.4853/1MZ.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash cheapest route

1431 msGoogle: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite fastest measured p50 TTFT via google-vertex

886 msZ.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash fastest measured p50 TTFT via greenference

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteZ.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash

Model idgoogle/gemini-3.1-flash-litez-ai/glm-4.7-flash

Publisher Google AI Studio Z.AI

AI IQ IQ 104#97 —

Context1,048,576 tokens131,072 tokens

Credits provider routes46

Cheapest route$1.84625/1M$0.4853/1M

Cached input$0.026375/1M$0.01055/1M to $0.03442/1M

Privacy posturehas ZDR routehas ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT1431 ms via google-vertex886 ms via greenference

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime range100.00%100.00%

Modes chat decide chat

Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite routes

Overview4 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash routes

Overview6 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5.339 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5.238 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash38 combined provider routes
Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Z.ai: GLM 5.337 combined provider routes
Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Z.ai: GLM 5.236 combined provider routes
Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash36 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash34 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash32 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash?

Is Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $1.84625/1M for Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and $0.4853/1M for Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 1431 ms for Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and 886 ms for Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Google: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite and z-ai/glm-4.7-flash. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.