Free to start

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has the lower published input-plus-output rate, the larger context window and the lower measured p50 time to first token. Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash has more Credits provider routes.

$0.223309/1MNVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning cheapest route

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

841 msNVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning fastest measured p50 TTFT via io-net

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.

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 LightningZ.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash

Model idnvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightningz-ai/glm-4.7-flash

PublisherNVIDIA Z.AI

AI IQ — —

Context262,144 tokens131,072 tokens

Credits provider routes36

Cheapest route$0.223309/1M$0.4853/1M

Cached input$0.01055/1M to $0.03165/1M$0.01055/1M to $0.03442/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT841 ms via io-net886 ms via greenference

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime range100.00%100.00%

Modes chat chat

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning routes

Overview3 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
NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Z.ai: GLM 5.336 combined provider routes
NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Z.ai: GLM 5.235 combined provider routes
NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash35 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="nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash?

Is NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.223309/1M for NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and $0.4853/1M for Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Z.ai: GLM 4.7 Flash faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 841 ms for NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning and z-ai/glm-4.7-flash. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.