Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Grok 4

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Grok 4 xAI

48.1

Rank #56 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Grok 4 in 2 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 leads 63.1 to 45.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 65.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 16% for Grok 4.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)xAI
Noometry Index51.848.1
Released2026-08-202025-07-09
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4048

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), Grok 4: 50.3 (#46)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
LMArena Coding15081408
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
Aider Polyglot—79.6%
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
WeirdML—45.7%
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Grok 4: 32.3 (#68)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
Terminal-Bench—27.2%
APEX-Agents52.8%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—63%
GDPval—21.1%
Cybench—43%
DeepResearch Bench—47.3%
BALROG—43.6%
GDP.pdf14%—
LMArena Search—1142
METR Time Horizons—66.6%

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Grok 4: 36.7 (#65)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
ARC-AGI-265.8%16%
ARC-AGI-191%66.7%
Chess Puzzles14%28%
LMArena Hard Prompts14911409
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88146.44
SimpleBench—60.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—73.6%
CritPt15.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
ForecastBench—60.9

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Grok 4: 48.4 (#64)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%84%
LMArena Math15001422
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench21%—
Omni-MATH—60.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—19.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Grok 4: 53.8 (#55)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
GPQA Diamond90.2%87%
LMArena Expert15131415
MMLU-Pro—85.1%
Confabulations—12.4%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%

Multimodal GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Grok 4: 33.7 (#94)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
LMArena Vision12961210
GeoBench—45%

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Grok 4: 51.8 (#103)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
LMArena Non-English14621403
LMArena Chinese15271427
LMArena French14961418
LMArena German14701429
LMArena Japanese14291394
LMArena Korean14461377
LMArena Russian14691410
LMArena Spanish14711420

Instruction Following Grok 4 leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Grok 4: 79.2 (#5)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
LMArena Instruction Following14781387
IFEval—94.9%

Long Context Grok 4 leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Grok 4: 63.1 (#4)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
LMArena Longer Query14821409
Fiction.LiveBench—94.4%

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Grok 4: 58.5 (#116)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashGrok 4
LMArena Text14711411
LMArena Creative Writing14421397
LMArena Multi-Turn14671416
Short-Story Creative Writing—76.9%
WildBench—79.7%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Grok 4?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 48.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Grok 4 better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 50.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Grok 4 share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 has 48.

Related comparisons

Go deeper