# GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash

> Side-by-side benchmark comparison for GLM-5.3-Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, multilingual, and math tasks.

- Canonical page: https://benchlm.ai/compare/glm-5-3-flash-vs-ling-3-1-flash
- Last updated: September 30, 2026

- Shared sourced benchmarks: 1
- HTML indexing: indexable
- Ranking lane: BenchAlign v5.7

## Quick Verdict

Evidence is too thin for a benchmark verdict: GLM-5.3-Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash share only 1 sourced benchmark row.

## Summary

- Only 1 shared sourced benchmark row is available. That is not enough for a broad capability verdict, so this mirror does not name an overall winner.
- Ling 3.1 Flash has the lower published output-token price.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has the larger published context window at 1M.

## Model Snapshot

| Property | GLM-5.3-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Creator | Z.AI | InclusionAI |
| Type | Open Weight | Proprietary |
| Reasoning | Reasoning | Reasoning |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Independent public score (not head-to-head) | 60.5 | null |
| Benchmarks Covered | 19 | 8 |
| Pricing (input/output) | $0.00 / $0.00 | Pricing unavailable / Pricing unavailable |

## Category Breakdown

### Agentic

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- GLM-5.3-Flash public-lane score: 56 (Supported · #32/119)
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 84.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Toolathlon-Verified | 78.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| AutomationBench | 48.8% | 52.5% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Agents' Last Exam | 26.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| HLE w/ tools | 55.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 62.9% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| skillsBench | Coming soon | 68.7% | Coming soon |
| CyberGym | Coming soon | 87.9% | Coming soon |
| Finance Agent v2 | Coming soon | 57.9% | Coming soon |
| DRACO | Coming soon | 85.5% | Coming soon |

### Coding

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- GLM-5.3-Flash public-lane score: 52.5 (Supported · #37/144)
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 84.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| DeepSWE | 63.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| NL2Repo | 56.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals) | 80.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 92.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| OpenHarmony Bench | 57.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| terminalBench4 | Coming soon | 40.4% | Coming soon |
| SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA | Coming soon | 55.9% | Coming soon |

### Reasoning

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- GLM-5.3-Flash public-lane score: 77.3 (#11/27)
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

### Multimodal & Grounded

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- GLM-5.3-Flash public-lane score: 80.4 (#12/49)
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| OfficeQA Pro | 62.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| CharXiv | 89.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Chartography (tools) | 78.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| BabyVision | 53.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| MMVU | 80.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |

### Knowledge

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- GLM-5.3-Flash public-lane score: 60.6 (Supported · #40/170)
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 86.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals) | 86.1% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| HealthBench Professional | Coming soon | 65.3% | Coming soon |

## FAQ

### Is there enough evidence to pick between GLM-5.3-Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Not yet. The models share only 1 sourced benchmark row, so this mirror reports the available measurements and metadata without naming a broad winner.

### What can I compare safely on this page?

Published pricing, context windows, model type, and individual shared benchmark rows are directly comparable. Independent overall scores and non-overlapping benchmark coverage are labeled separately and should not be read as a controlled head-to-head result.

## Related Comparisons

- [GLM-5.3-Flash vs GLM-5.3](/compare/glm-5-3-vs-glm-5-3-flash)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3](/compare/glm-5-3-vs-ling-3-1-flash)
- [GLM-5.3-Flash vs GLM-5.2](/compare/glm-5-2-vs-glm-5-3-flash)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM-5.2](/compare/glm-5-2-vs-ling-3-1-flash)

## Explore More

- [GLM-5.3-Flash profile](/models/glm-5-3-flash)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash profile](/models/ling-3-1-flash)
- [Compare Pricing](/llm-pricing)
- [Alternative Finder](/tools/alternative-finder)
- [LLM Selector](/tools/llm-selector)
- [Overall Rankings](/best/overall)