Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen-14B

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Qwen-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #275 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 65.3 to 27.6.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen-14B specifications
GLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index51.831.4
Released2026-08-202023-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
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), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Coding15081071
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), Qwen-14B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Hard Prompts14911027
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88113.03
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
BIG-Bench Hard—55%
LAMBADA—71.1%
PIQA—79.9%

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Math15001068
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—
GSM8K—61.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Qwen-14B: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
LMArena Expert1513—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—84.4%
BoolQ—86.2%
MMLU—66.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Qwen-14B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Non-English14621041
LMArena Chinese15271077
LMArena French1496—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1446—
LMArena Russian1469—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Instruction Following14781031

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Longer Query14821028

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen-14B
LMArena Text14711051
LMArena Creative Writing14421028
LMArena Multi-Turn14671022

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen-14B?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen-14B better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen-14B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper