Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-5.3 Chat

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

GPT-5.3 Chat OpenAI

42.8

Rank #109 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-5.3 Chat in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 38.8.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)OpenAI
Noometry Index51.842.8
Released2026-08-202026-03-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M128K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$1.75
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$14
Results tracked4018

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31), GPT-5.3 Chat: 41.4 (#124)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Coding15081408
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), GPT-5.3 Chat: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), GPT-5.3 Chat: 28.5 (#102)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Hard Prompts14911399
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#142)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Math15001389
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.8 (#140)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Expert15131397
GPQA Diamond90.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), GPT-5.3 Chat: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.3 (#124)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Non-English14621382
LMArena Chinese15271432
LMArena French14961397
LMArena German14701384
LMArena Japanese14291352
LMArena Korean14461346
LMArena Russian14691400
LMArena Spanish14711371

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), GPT-5.3 Chat: 72.8 (#129)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Instruction Following14781378

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#120)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Longer Query14821396

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.1 (#68)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGPT-5.3 Chat
LMArena Text14711389
LMArena Creative Writing14421355
LMArena Multi-Turn14671412
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1690

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than GPT-5.3 Chat?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 42.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or GPT-5.3 Chat?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GPT-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or GPT-5.3 Chat better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 41.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and GPT-5.3 Chat share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.3 Chat has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper