# GLM-5.3 vs Trinity Large Thinking

> GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 5.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-3-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 21

## Summary

- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.3 leads 46.1 to 16.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 74.2% for GLM-5.3 and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
- GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 54.8 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 26 | 185 |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1622 | 1238 |
| SciCode | 59% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1496 | 1381 |
| DeepSWE | 69% | — |
| FrontierCode | 40.1% | — |
| CursorBench | 42.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 30.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,317 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,164 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.2% | 16.5% |
| CritPt | 19.1% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1489 | 1350 |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 33% | — |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| LMCA | 55.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.61 | — |

## Math

- GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1489 | 1366 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 68.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 91.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 49% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1457 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1528 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1499 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1499 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1472 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1463 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | 1357 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1334 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1457 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1342 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2075 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.3 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 5.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is GLM-5.3 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.