Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#26); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GLM-5.3 leads 36.4 to 31.3.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.47 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
  • GLM-5.3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3 and Qwen3.8 Flash specifications
GLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.835.5
Released2026-08-142026-08-26
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.47
Results tracked421

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
LMArena WebDev1622—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
LMArena Coding1496—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Qwen3.8 Flash: 31.3

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
APEX-Agents56.6%—
GDP.pdf—16.6%
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1489—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61—

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%—
ProofBench49%—
LMArena Math1489—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
GPQA Diamond90.9%—
SimpleQA Verified41%—
LMArena Expert1516—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Non-English1457—
LMArena Chinese1528—
LMArena French1499—
LMArena German1499—
LMArena Japanese1453—
LMArena Korean1472—
LMArena Russian1463—
LMArena Spanish1460—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1457—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Qwen3.8 Flash?

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#26); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.47 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Qwen3.8 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Flash has 1.

Related comparisons

Go deeper