Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5 Plus

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.5 Plus in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 48.0 to 32.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 17% for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index51.842.9
Released2026-08-202026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$2.40
Results tracked4015

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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
ALE-Bench303.55621.92
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
LMArena Coding1508—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
Chess Puzzles14%22%
Mystery Game Puzzles8%17%
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88146.78
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1491—
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%86.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench21%—
LMArena Math1500—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
GPQA Diamond90.2%84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.7%
LMArena Expert1513—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1478—

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1442—
LMArena Multi-Turn1467—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus lists at $0.40 and $2.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper