Model comparison
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-6 Luna
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 45.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and GPT-6 Luna in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 40.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierCode: 31.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 42.4% for GPT-6 Luna.
- GPT-6 Luna is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.50 for GLM-5.3-Flash.
- GPT-6 Luna accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 49.6 | 45.1 |
| Released | 2026-08-20 | 2026-09-22 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 36 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26), GPT-6 Luna: 54.7 (#24)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 63.4% | 66.6% |
| FrontierCode | 31.8% | 42.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1614 | 1583 |
| LMArena Coding | 1506 | 1448 |
| SciCode | 51.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 303.55 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41), GPT-6 Luna: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 52.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69), GPT-6 Luna: 31.7 (#68)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1490 | 1415 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 68.7% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 52.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.9 | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38), GPT-6 Luna: 35.6 (#140)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 55.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 21% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33), GPT-6 Luna: 40.1 (#110)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1512 | 1458 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
Multimodal Too close to call
GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25), GPT-6 Luna: 42.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1304 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 44.2% |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24), GPT-6 Luna: 51.0 (#111)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1462 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 1472 | 1392 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | 1416 |
| LMArena French | 1495 | — |
| LMArena German | 1457 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1443 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17), GPT-6 Luna: 74.7 (#85)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1480 | 1414 |
Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41), GPT-6 Luna: 43.3 (#95)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1417 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49), GPT-6 Luna: 58.4 (#115)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | GPT-6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1392 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1357 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | 1400 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than GPT-6 Luna?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 45.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or GPT-6 Luna?
GPT-6 Luna is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3-Flash lists at $0.15 and $0.50.
Is GLM-5.3-Flash or GPT-6 Luna better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (53.7 vs 54.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6 Luna does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and GPT-6 Luna share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 36 scored results on Noometry and GPT-6 Luna has 18.