Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen Turbo

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

49.6

Rank #45 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

26.8

Rank #329 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.1 to 14.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
  • Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.50 for GLM-5.3-Flash.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index49.626.8
Released2026-08-202024-11-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$0.20
Results tracked363

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
LMArena WebDev1614—
SciCode51.6%—
LMArena Coding1506—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1490—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38), Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%6.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench21%—
LMArena Math1499—
MATH Level 5—56.2%

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond90.2%41.8%
LMArena Expert1512—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
LMArena Vision1304—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1462—
LMArena Chinese1529—
LMArena French1495—
LMArena German1457—
LMArena Japanese1420—
LMArena Korean1443—
LMArena Russian1472—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following1480—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
LMArena Longer Query1479—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49), Qwen Turbo: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen Turbo
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1440—
LMArena Multi-Turn1471—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen Turbo?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3-Flash lists at $0.15 and $0.50.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

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

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper