OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

Llama 3.3 70B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1

Llama 3.3 70B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

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

Llama 3.3 70B has the lower published input-plus-output rate. Z.ai: GLM 5.1 has more Credits provider routes and the larger context window. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

$3.6925/1MLlama 3.3 70B cheapest route

$4.2833/1MZ.ai: GLM 5.1 cheapest route

not enough dataLlama 3.3 70B fastest measured p50 TTFT

1484 msZ.ai: GLM 5.1 fastest measured p50 TTFT via friendli

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.

Llama 3.3 70BZ.ai: GLM 5.1

Model idmeta-llama/llama-3.3-70bz-ai/glm-5.1

Publisher Cerebras Z.AI

AI IQ — IQ 113#47

Context128,000 tokens202,752 tokens

Credits provider routes112

Cheapest route$3.6925/1M$4.2833/1M

Cached inputNot published$0.10339/1M to $0.670411/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas provider E2EE route

Fastest measured p50 TTFTnot enough data1484 ms via friendli

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime rangenot enough data50.00% to 100.00%

Modes chat chat

Llama 3.3 70B routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Z.ai: GLM 5.1 routes

Overview12 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Z.ai: GLM 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.240 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.338 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash37 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.136 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.136 combined provider routes
OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b vs Z.ai: GLM 5.134 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.131 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0423 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.129 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="meta-llama/llama-3.3-70b",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Llama 3.3 70B or Z.ai: GLM 5.1?

Llama 3.3 70B has the lower published input-plus-output rate. Z.ai: GLM 5.1 has more Credits provider routes and the larger context window. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

Is Llama 3.3 70B or Z.ai: GLM 5.1 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $3.6925/1M for Llama 3.3 70B and $4.2833/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.1. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Llama 3.3 70B or Z.ai: GLM 5.1 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is not enough data for Llama 3.3 70B and 1484 ms for Z.ai: GLM 5.1. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Llama 3.3 70B and Z.ai: GLM 5.1 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between meta-llama/llama-3.3-70b and z-ai/glm-5.1. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.