GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5 Flash

Updated September 28, 2026. Rank says GLM-5.3 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

GLM-5.3 has the higher public score, 65.44 versus 45.49, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

GLM-5.3

Z.AI

65.44/100

Estimated · Public rank #27

90% interval 59.7–71.2

Model B

Qwen3.5 Flash

Alibaba

45.49/100

Estimated · Public rank #94

90% interval 36.5–54.5

Shared results: 4
GLM-5.3 only: 20
Qwen3.5 Flash only: 2
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

Estimated: GLM-5.3 and Qwen3.5 FlashHow the comparison works

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
Qwen3.5 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
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: 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

56.7GLM-5.326.3Qwen3.5 Flash

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

GLM-5.3 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 2.8
GLM-5.3:80.5%
Qwen3.5 Flash:83.3%
GLM-5.3 source Qwen3.5 Flash source
MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 2.7
GLM-5.3:86.8%
Qwen3.5 Flash:84.1%
GLM-5.3 source Qwen3.5 Flash source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Directional only

GLM-5.3: 56.7; Supported · #22/136
Qwen3.5 Flash: 26.3; Estimated · #98/136
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 13 vs 2 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

GLM-5.3: 61.9; Supported · #33/160
Qwen3.5 Flash: 43.1; Estimated · #80/160
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 67.3; Supported · #9/111
Qwen3.5 Flash: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 77.1; #11/27
Qwen3.5 Flash: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

GLM-5.3: Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

GLM-5.3: Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

GLM-5.3: Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

GLM-5.3: Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash: 28.4; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for GLM-5.3 and Qwen3.5 Flash
Category	GLM-5.3	Qwen3.5 Flash	Basis	Reading
Coding	56.7Supported · #22/136	26.3Estimated · #98/136	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 13 vs 2 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	61.9Supported · #33/160	43.1Estimated · #80/160	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows	Directional only
Agentic	67.3Supported · #9/111	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 0 public rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	77.1#11/27	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	28.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Flash: $0.0003; Fits in one request

GLM-5.3 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GLM-5.3: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Flash: $0.0062; Fits in one request

GLM-5.3 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

GLM-5.3: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.5 Flash: $0.026; Fits in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. GLM-5.3 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

SpecificationGLM-5.3Qwen3.5 Flash

Context window

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

GLM-5.3

Z.AI GLM-5.3 model card

Qwen3.5 Flash

API model ID

GLM-5.3

zai-org/GLM-5.3

Z.AI GLM-5.3 model card

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

GLM-5.3

No comparable hosted API rate

Z.AI GLM-5.3 model card

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not published

Documented inputs

GLM-5.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GLM-5.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

GLM-5.3

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GLM-5.3

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

GLM-5.3

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 Flash

Proprietary

License

GLM-5.3

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

GLM-5.3

2026-08-14

Qwen3.5 Flash

2026-03-04

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: GLM-5.3 has the higher public score, 65.44 versus 45.49, and the 90% score intervals do not 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.

Questions

Which is better, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

GLM-5.3 has the higher public score, 65.44 versus 45.49, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

GLM-5.3 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 56.7 to 26.3. Qwen3.5 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 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-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence26 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.1
GLM-5.388.2%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
terminalBench3
GLM-5.328.3%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
GLM-5.384.5%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GLM-5.315.0%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
GLM-5.373.0%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
GLM-5.348.2%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
GLM-5.328.5%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
GLM-5.362.5%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GLM-5.371.5%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.1
GLM-5.388.2%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
terminalBench3
GLM-5.328.3%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
GLM-5.366.9%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
GLM-5.358%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
GLM-5.319.0%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
GLM-5.378.1%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
sweMarathon
GLM-5.342.5%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
GLM-5.339.8%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
GLM-5.378.3%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
GLM-5.360.8%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
GLM-5.330.2%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GLM-5.380.5%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash83.3%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
GLM-5.395.4%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash64.4%
Source
GLM-5.3 leads this result

Knowledge

GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GLM-5.388.1%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash82.8%
Source
GLM-5.3 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GLM-5.386.8%
Source
Qwen3.5 Flash84.1%
Source
GLM-5.3 leads this result

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
GLM-5.3—
Qwen3.5 Flash6.207%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GLM-5.3—
Qwen3.5 Flash0.000%
Source
Not directly comparable

26 public results · 4 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5 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.

Last updated September 28, 2026

GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5 Flash

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Coding

Knowledge

Agentic

Reasoning

Multimodal

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Which is better for coding, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Which costs less, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Which has the larger context window, GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Math

Related comparisons

Watch GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5 Flash