A newer test record is availableThis report preserves the result at the time of testing and remains valid as a record. You can also view the newer report。
UndeterminedBelow decision threshold
Identity could not be determined this time
行为特征与已收录的官方型号均不够接近，本次无法判定。
Brand consistency71/100
Model match score (glm-5.3-flash)71/100
Checks12/17 Passed
- Providers
- codekey.ai
- Claimed model
- glm-5.3-flash
- Plan
- Full check
- Reference
- 108 official models
- Requests
- 23
- Duration
- 9 分钟
01Identity check
Behaviour compared with each official referenceIndependent sample A采样 AValidIndependent sample B采样 BValidIndependent sample C采样 CInvalidIndependent sample D采样 DValidIndependent sample E采样 EInvalidIndependent sample F采样 FInvalidIndependent sample G采样 GInvalidIndependent sample H采样 HInvalidIndependent sample I采样 IValidReference108 official models · 4/9 Valid
Answer by answer4 answers: 3 match glm-5.3-flash；another 1 match no model clearly on their own
Similarity to official modelsTop 5
These answers are not close to any official model on file. The percentages below only rank them against each other and do not mean the answers resemble any of these models.
- glm-5.3-flashClaimed model71%
- claude-sonnet-5-527%
- claude-fable-51%
- claude-fable-5-1<1%
- glm-5.3<1%
02Test details
17 items · 12 passed · 5 notes · 0 failed| No. | Check | Result | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connectivity & auth | |||
| A-01 | Endpoint reachable | Passed | The endpoint responds normally |
| A-02 | Key authentication | Passed | API key is valid and allowed to make calls |
| A-03 | Model on sale | Passed | The model list includes glm-5.3-flash |
| API conformance | |||
| B-01 | Basic call | Passed | Returns the expected content as instructed |
| B-02 | Response structure | Meets the spec | All OpenAI-compatible fields are present |
| B-03 | Model ID echoed back | Match | The model ID in the response matches the request |
| B-04 | Usage record | Complete and consistent | Input, output and total are all present, and the total equals the sum |
| B-05 | Output cleanliness | Nothing added | No inserted ads, watermarks or extra notes found |
| Identity check | |||
| C-01 | Independent sampling | 4 / 9 valid | 首轮未能判定，已追加两轮；部分采样结果不可用于比对 |
| C-02 | Brand consistency | Pending review | Brand match score 71; below the decision threshold |
| C-03 | Model consistency | Undetermined | Model match score 71; below the decision threshold |
| C-04 | Cross-brand swap check | Cannot be identified | Not close to any official model on file, so the substitute's vendor cannot be told |
| Billing & capabilities | |||
| D-01 | Cache billing | Cache billing works | On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price. |
| D-02 | Context length | 1M passed | 32K / 128K / 400K / 1M: every tier was read in full. |
| D-03 | Streaming output | Normal | Streamed content is complete |
| D-04 | Tool use | Supported | Returns the correct function name and arguments |
| D-05 | Structured output | Did not follow the schema | The response did not follow the required JSON schema |
Cache billing check
The same long content was sent 5 times: the 1st is billed at the regular price, and from the 2nd on the repeated part should be billed at the cache price.
Cache billing ratio99.2%
Cache billing works
On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price.
Usage this run27.8KCached tokens22.0KNon-cached tokens5.7KAverage per run5.6K
Usage reportedReportedCache billingHappenedResultCache billing works
Cache share by testThis is only the cache share the endpoint reported; the real discount is on the bill
Context length check
Long documents are sent tier by tier to check whether the whole document is read.
Verified up to 1M
32K / 128K / 400K / 1M: every tier was read in full.
Reference windowVerified up to 1MThe model center has no reference context window for this model yet.Tested context lengths32K / 128K / 400K / 1MTested from short to long, stopping at the first failure.
- 32KRead in full · 31.5K received
- 128KRead in full · 119.9K received
- 400KRead in full · 383.6K received
- 1MRead in full · 904.1K received
Token usage check
Reported usage is used; estimates appear only when none is reported.
Reported usage1.5MThe actual usage reported by the API; this page goes by it.Estimated usage1.3M-1.8MEstimated from this test's requests.DeviationWithin the estimateThe reported usage is within the estimated range.Usage checkMatches the estimateFigures are as reported by the API; your bill is authoritative.
Method: independent samples from the tested endpoint are compared against reference samples collected from official channels; billing, context and capability items come from real calls. API keys, request bodies and raw model output are not stored.
This report reflects the endpoint at the time of testing.
Reviews
还没有人评论，来写第一条。
Before you buy AI, check MozhenzhenScan to view reportOpen full report
Mozhenzhen verification report · Measured with real calls
glm-5.3-flash verification report
A newer test record is availableThis report preserves the result at the time of testing and remains valid as a record. You can also view the newer report。
UndeterminedBelow decision threshold
Identity could not be determined this time
行为特征与已收录的官方型号均不够接近，本次无法判定。
Brand consistency71/100
Model match score (glm-5.3-flash)71/100
Checks12/17 Passed
- Providers
- codekey.ai
- Claimed model
- glm-5.3-flash
- Plan
- Full check
- Reference
- 108 official models
- Requests
- 23
- Duration
- 9 分钟
01Identity check
Behaviour compared with each official referenceIndependent sample A采样 AValidIndependent sample B采样 BValidIndependent sample C采样 CInvalidIndependent sample D采样 DValidIndependent sample E采样 EInvalidIndependent sample F采样 FInvalidIndependent sample G采样 GInvalidIndependent sample H采样 HInvalidIndependent sample I采样 IValidReference108 official models · 4/9 Valid
Answer by answer4 answers: 3 match glm-5.3-flash；another 1 match no model clearly on their own
Similarity to official modelsTop 5
These answers are not close to any official model on file. The percentages below only rank them against each other and do not mean the answers resemble any of these models.
- glm-5.3-flashClaimed model71%
- claude-sonnet-5-527%
- claude-fable-51%
- claude-fable-5-1<1%
- glm-5.3<1%
02Test details
17 items · 12 passed · 5 notes · 0 failed| No. | Check | Result | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connectivity & auth | |||
| A-01 | Endpoint reachable | Passed | The endpoint responds normally |
| A-02 | Key authentication | Passed | API key is valid and allowed to make calls |
| A-03 | Model on sale | Passed | The model list includes glm-5.3-flash |
| API conformance | |||
| B-01 | Basic call | Passed | Returns the expected content as instructed |
| B-02 | Response structure | Meets the spec | All OpenAI-compatible fields are present |
| B-03 | Model ID echoed back | Match | The model ID in the response matches the request |
| B-04 | Usage record | Complete and consistent | Input, output and total are all present, and the total equals the sum |
| B-05 | Output cleanliness | Nothing added | No inserted ads, watermarks or extra notes found |
| Identity check | |||
| C-01 | Independent sampling | 4 / 9 valid | 首轮未能判定，已追加两轮；部分采样结果不可用于比对 |
| C-02 | Brand consistency | Pending review | Brand match score 71; below the decision threshold |
| C-03 | Model consistency | Undetermined | Model match score 71; below the decision threshold |
| C-04 | Cross-brand swap check | Cannot be identified | Not close to any official model on file, so the substitute's vendor cannot be told |
| Billing & capabilities | |||
| D-01 | Cache billing | Cache billing works | On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price. |
| D-02 | Context length | 1M passed | 32K / 128K / 400K / 1M: every tier was read in full. |
| D-03 | Streaming output | Normal | Streamed content is complete |
| D-04 | Tool use | Supported | Returns the correct function name and arguments |
| D-05 | Structured output | Did not follow the schema | The response did not follow the required JSON schema |
Cache billing check
The same long content was sent 5 times: the 1st is billed at the regular price, and from the 2nd on the repeated part should be billed at the cache price.
Cache billing ratio99.2%
Cache billing works
On average 99% of repeated requests were billed at the cache price.
Usage this run27.8KCached tokens22.0KNon-cached tokens5.7KAverage per run5.6K
Usage reportedReportedCache billingHappenedResultCache billing works
Cache share by testThis is only the cache share the endpoint reported; the real discount is on the bill
Context length check
Long documents are sent tier by tier to check whether the whole document is read.
Verified up to 1M
32K / 128K / 400K / 1M: every tier was read in full.
Reference windowVerified up to 1MThe model center has no reference context window for this model yet.Tested context lengths32K / 128K / 400K / 1MTested from short to long, stopping at the first failure.
- 32KRead in full · 31.5K received
- 128KRead in full · 119.9K received
- 400KRead in full · 383.6K received
- 1MRead in full · 904.1K received
Token usage check
Reported usage is used; estimates appear only when none is reported.
Reported usage1.5MThe actual usage reported by the API; this page goes by it.Estimated usage1.3M-1.8MEstimated from this test's requests.DeviationWithin the estimateThe reported usage is within the estimated range.Usage checkMatches the estimateFigures are as reported by the API; your bill is authoritative.
Method: independent samples from the tested endpoint are compared against reference samples collected from official channels; billing, context and capability items come from real calls. API keys, request bodies and raw model output are not stored.
This report reflects the endpoint at the time of testing.
Reviews
还没有人评论，来写第一条。
发表评论
编辑器加载中…
发表评论