# GLM-5.3-Flash vs Grok 4.6

> Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 51.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.3-Flash costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-3-flash-vs-grok-4-6
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 38

## Summary

- They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Grok 4.6 in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Grok 4.6 leads 67.0 to 53.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 21% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 51% for Grok 4.6.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 500K.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 51.8 | 56.9 |
| Rank | 41 | 21 |
| Context | 1M | 500K |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.50 | $6 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)
- Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 63.4% | 67.5% |
| FrontierCode | 31.8% | 48% |
| CursorBench | 36.8% | 41.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1609 | 1617 |
| FrontierSWE | 18.1% | 25.3% |
| SciCode | 51.6% | 56.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1508 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 303.55 | 1,508 |
| WeirdML | — | 67.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)
- Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 52.8% | 65.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | 17.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,047 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)
- Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.8% | 67.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 91% | 87.5% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 19.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1491 | 1447 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 8% | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.88 | 156.44 |
| SimpleBench | — | 75.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 80% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 30.5% |
| DTBench | — | 97.3% |
| LMCA | — | 48.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 52.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |

## Math

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)
- Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 55.8% | 66% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | 31.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.9% | 99.2% |
| ProofBench | 21% | 51% |
| LMArena Math | 1500 | 1423 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)
- Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 94% |
| LMArena Expert | 1513 | 1467 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 49.3% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)
- Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 40% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1452 |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)
- Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1462 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1527 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1496 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1431 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1429 | 1376 |
| LMArena Korean | 1446 | 1397 |
| LMArena Russian | 1469 | 1422 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | 1404 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)
- Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1431 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)
- Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1454 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)
- Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1428 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | 1425 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Grok 4.6?

Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 51.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-5.3-Flash costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Grok 4.6?

GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.

### Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Grok 4.6 better for coding?

Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 53.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 500K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Grok 4.6 share?

38 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.6 has 49.