Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Solar Pro4

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Solar Pro4 Upstage

42.1

Rank #121 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Solar Pro4 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 48.0 to 28.5.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for Solar Pro4.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 524K.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Upstage
Noometry Index51.842.1
Released2026-08-202026-08-06
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M524K
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.50$1.20
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), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena WebDev16091371
LMArena Coding15081437
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Solar Pro4: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Hard Prompts14911399
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Math15001416
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Expert15131427
GPQA Diamond90.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Solar Pro4: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Non-English14621361
LMArena Chinese15271415
LMArena French14961397
LMArena German14701364
LMArena Japanese14291309
LMArena Korean14461382
LMArena Russian14691360
LMArena Spanish14711401

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Instruction Following14781377

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Longer Query14821381

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashSolar Pro4
LMArena Text14711386
LMArena Creative Writing14421316
LMArena Multi-Turn14671385

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Solar Pro4?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Solar Pro4?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Solar Pro4 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Solar Pro4 better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 524K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Solar Pro4 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper