Side-by-side comparison
GLM 4 32B vs ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B
Baidu Qianfan
ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B
🔧 Tools
Input / 1M
$0.0700
Output / 1M
$0.2800
| GLM 4 32B | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai | Baidu Qianfan |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 128,000 | 120,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools | tools |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.1000 | 0.0700 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.1000 | 0.2800 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, GLM 4 32B or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
GLM 4 32B is cheaper than ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.075 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, GLM 4 32B or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
GLM 4 32B has the larger context window at 128k tokens versus 120k tokens for ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B. That means GLM 4 32B can ingest about 1.1x as much text per request.
What is the difference between GLM 4 32B and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
GLM 4 32B comes from Z.ai; ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B comes from Baidu Qianfan. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.