Model comparison
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen Plus
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus 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 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 51.8 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2026-08-20 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 20 |
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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1508 | 1328 |
| DeepSWE | 63.4% | — |
| FrontierCode | 31.8% | — |
| CursorBench | 36.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1609 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 18.1% | — |
| SciCode | 51.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 303.55 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 52.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1491 | 1317 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 91% | — |
| CritPt | 15.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 8% | — |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 52.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.88 | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.9% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1500 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 55.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 21% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1513 | 1328 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1462 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1527 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1429 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1469 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1496 | — |
| LMArena German | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1303 |
Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1324 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | 1336 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen Plus?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen Plus?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.
Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen Plus better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen Plus share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.