Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 54.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 35 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 35 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 62.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 21% for GLM-5.3 and 40% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • GLM-5.3 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • GLM-5.3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.856.8
Released2026-08-142026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$2
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$6
Results tracked4239

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
DeepSWE69%57.5%
LMArena WebDev16221674
FrontierSWE30.2%17.8%
SciCode59%53.2%
LMArena Coding14961502
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
WeirdML75.4%—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents56.6%63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%88.3%
CritPt19.1%20%
Chess Puzzles21%40%
LMArena Hard Prompts14891496
Mystery Game Puzzles33%38%
DTBench87.7%92%
LMCA55.5%46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61156.41
Bench to the Future 30.15—

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%100%
ProofBench49%58%
LMArena Math14891499

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond90.9%92.7%
SimpleQA Verified41%47.3%
LMArena Expert15161507

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English14571472
LMArena Chinese15281538
LMArena French14991503
LMArena German14991483
LMArena Japanese14531467
LMArena Korean14721461
LMArena Russian14631481
LMArena Spanish14601492

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14771479

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query14821489

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text14711483
LMArena Creative Writing14571479
LMArena Multi-Turn14721489
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 54.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-5.3 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.

Is GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 53.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

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

35 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper