Multimodal
Directional only- GLM-5.3-Flash
- 74.7
- Hy4 preview
- 66.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy4 preview
Updated August 28, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Hy4 preview has the higher public score estimate, 79.16 versus 61.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
9 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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.
4 GLM-5.3-Flash only
9 Shared
19 Hy4 preview only
- Shared results
- 9
- GLM-5.3-Flash only
- 4
- Hy4 preview only
- 19
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- 65.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- 60.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Not measured
- Hy4 preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GLM-5.3-Flash | Hy4 preview | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 74.7 | 66.2 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 65.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 60.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | 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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OfficeQA Pro
Multimodal
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-5.3-Flash
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Hy4 preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Hy4 preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GLM-5.3-Flash
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Hy4 preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
GLM-5.3-Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Hy4 preview 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.
SpecificationGLM-5.3-FlashHy4 preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GLM-5.3-Flash
Hy4 preview
API model ID
GLM-5.3-Flash
glm-5.3-flash
GLM-5.3-Flash model cardHy4 preview
tencent/Hy4-preview
Tencent Hy4 preview model cardCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GLM-5.3-Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
GLM-5.3-Flash model cardHy4 preview
No comparable hosted API rate
Tencent Hy4 preview model cardDocumented inputs
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not sourced
Hy4 preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not sourced
Hy4 preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
GLM-5.3-Flash
Not sourced
Hy4 preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GLM-5.3-Flash
Reasoning
Hy4 preview
Reasoning
Weight access
GLM-5.3-Flash
Open Weight
Hy4 preview
Open Weight
License
GLM-5.3-Flash
Open Weight
Hy4 preview
Open Weight
Release date
GLM-5.3-Flash
2026-08-26
Hy4 preview
2026-08-28
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Hy4 preview has the higher public score estimate, 79.16 versus 61.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence32 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GLM-5.3-Flash84.3%SourceHy4 preview85.4%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
GLM-5.3-Flash78.4%SourceHy4 preview74.1%SourceGLM-5.3-Flash leads this result
AutomationBench
GLM-5.3-Flash48.8%SourceHy4 preview32.1%SourceGLM-5.3-Flash leads this result
Agents' Last Exam
GLM-5.3-Flash26.3%SourceHy4 preview22.8%SourceGLM-5.3-Flash leads this result
HLE w/ tools
GLM-5.3-Flash55.3%SourceHy4 preview55.4%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
CyberGym
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview78.4%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview77.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview37.1%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview62.9%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview61.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BankerToolBench
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview78.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GLM-5.3-Flash84.3%SourceHy4 preview85.4%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
deepSwe
GLM-5.3-Flash63.4%SourceHy4 preview64.3%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
NL2Repo
GLM-5.3-Flash56.3%SourceHy4 preview58.9%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview65.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview17.5%SourceNot directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview35.6%SourceNot directly comparable
sweMarathon
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview31.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
CritPt
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview16.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Apex
GLM-5.3-Flash—Hy4 preview74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash62.4%SourceHy4 preview66.2%SourceHy4 preview leads this result
CharXiv
GLM-5.3-Flash89.4%SourceHy4 preview—Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
GLM-5.3-Flash78.0%SourceHy4 preview—Not directly comparable
BabyVision
GLM-5.3-Flash53.4%SourceHy4 preview—Not directly comparable
MMVU
GLM-5.3-Flash80.5%SourceHy4 preview—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, GLM-5.3-Flash or Hy4 preview?
Hy4 preview has the higher public score estimate, 79.16 versus 61.27, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.3-Flash or Hy4 preview?
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-5.3-Flash or Hy4 preview?
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-5.3-Flash or Hy4 preview?
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-5.3-Flash or Hy4 preview?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 28, 2026
Watch GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy4 preview
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.