Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Z.AI logo
Model A
GLM-5.1

Z.AI

67.0/100

Supported · Public rank #30

90% interval 56.5–77.5

GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

Updated August 26, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.

Z.AI logo
Model B
GLM-5.3-Flash

Z.AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GLM-5.3-Flash

    GLM-5.3-Flash has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
GLM-5.1 only
20
GLM-5.3-Flash only
12
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
65.4
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
61.3
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
52.3
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
62.0
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
4 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
GLM-5.3-Flash
74.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GLM-5.1
Not measured
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

GLM-5.1
$0.0036
Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GLM-5.1
$0.0832
Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GLM-5.1
$0.352
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GLM-5.3-Flash
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GLM-5.1 does not fit this workload in one request. GLM-5.1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GLM-5.1

203K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GLM-5.1

Not published

GLM-5.3-Flash

No comparable hosted API rate

GLM-5.3-Flash model card

Documented inputs

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

GLM-5.3-Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

GLM-5.3-Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-5.1

Not sourced

GLM-5.3-Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-5.1

Reasoning

GLM-5.3-Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

GLM-5.3-Flash

Open Weight

License

GLM-5.1

Open Weight

GLM-5.3-Flash

Open Weight

Release date

GLM-5.1

2026-04-07

GLM-5.3-Flash

2026-08-26

If you are choosing between sibling variants
Deployment change
Both entries list Z.AI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
GLM-5.3-Flash has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

GLM-5.1
API / mo$4,350
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even264M/day
GLM-5.3-Flash
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence33 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GLM-5.163.5%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GLM-5.168%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    GLM-5.170.6%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    GLM-5.171.8%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GLM-5.168.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GLM-5.162.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GLM-5.160.11%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    GLM-5.118.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash84.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash78.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash48.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash26.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash55.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GLM-5.158.4%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    GLM-5.142.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash56.3%
    Source

    GLM-5.3-Flash leads this result

  • SWE-Rebench

    GLM-5.162.7%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    GLM-5.131.46%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    GLM-5.152.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash84.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash63.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA-D

    GLM-5.186.2%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GLM-5.152.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    GLM-5.195.3%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    GLM-5.194.0%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    GLM-5.182.6%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    GLM-5.183.8%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GLM-5.133.448%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GLM-5.112.500%
    Source
    GLM-5.3-Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash62.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash89.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash78.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    GLM-5.1—
    GLM-5.3-Flash80.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GLM-5.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, GLM-5.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GLM-5.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 203K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 26, 2026

Watch GLM-5.1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.