Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.1

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Mistral Medium 3.1 Mistral AI

31.9

Rank #266 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 48.0 to 10.6.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Mistral AI
Noometry Index51.831.9
Released2026-08-20—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M131K
Max output131K105K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$2
Results tracked403

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
LMArena Coding1508—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—6.5%
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Thematic Generalization—20.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1491—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88—

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—
LMArena Math1500—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
LMArena Expert1513—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Non-English1462—
LMArena Chinese1527—
LMArena French1496—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1446—
LMArena Russian1469—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Instruction Following1478—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashMistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1442—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1476
LMArena Multi-Turn1467—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper