Z.AI · Model release
Data as of September 28, 2026 · How the score is built
GLM-5.3
Decision readingGLM-5.3 scores 65.4 out of 100 and ranks #27 of 201. This profile shows 25 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #9. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.
Released Aug 14, 2026 — see all recent releases
GLM-5.3 will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
65.4/100
field median 50.3#27 of 201 ranked models
Public
#27of 201
Verified —
Price
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
input median $1No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
91tok/s
field median 95 tok/sFirst token 24.68 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #9. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
25 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Source-linked · 25 displayable benchmark rows
Follow model changesCategory score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #9 of 111Percentile 93rdWeight 22%9 benchmarksVerified | 67.3 | 9 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #22 of 136Percentile 84thWeight 20%13 benchmarksVerified | 56.7 | 13 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #33 of 160Percentile 80thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 61.9 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
25 of 486 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic9/9 verified
- Coding13/13 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- MathNot measured
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
GLM-5.3 category percentile values
- Agentic93rd percentile
- Coding84th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Knowledge80th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#9/111
- Coding#22/136
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#33/160
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding13 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierSWE v2 | Score30.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5% | Gap35.3 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score80.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap10 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | |
| VulcanBench v3 | Score78.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Grok 4.5 · 89.9% | Gap11.6 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| DeepSWE | Score66.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 75.4% | Gap8.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score88.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| terminalBench3 | Score28.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 30% | Gap1.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| NL2Repo | Score58% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 65.4% | Gap7.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? | Score19.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0% | Gap74 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| FrontierSWE | Score78.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Kimi K3 · 81.2% | Gap3.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| sweMarathon | Score42.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Step 5 Preview · 72.7% | Gap30.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| PostTrain Bench | Score39.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GLM-5.3 · 39.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OpenHarmony BenchOpenHarmony Bench v1.0 | Score60.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 60.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score95.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | Gap1.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
Agentic9 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score71.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap15.8 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score88.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| AutomationBench | Score48.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 54.8% | Gap6.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon-Verified | Score73.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6% | Gap7.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Agents' Last Exam | Score28.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 59.3% | Gap30.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score62.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | Gap5.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| terminalBench3 | Score28.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 30% | Gap1.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| CyberGym | Score84.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 95.1% | Gap10.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ExploitGym | Score15.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 42.4% | Gap27.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score86.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap5.6 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Verified |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score88.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap7.4 behind | Weight2% ref. weight |
External signals1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ExploitBenchExploitBench v8-bench | Score54% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 100% | Gap45.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
GLM-5.3 release history
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use GLM-5.3 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
Radar
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- zai-org/GLM-5.3Z.AI GLM-5.3 model card
- Context window
- 1MZ.AI GLM-5.3 model card
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not sourced yet
- Availability
- Z.AI now publishes the 753.33B-parameter FP8 checkpoint under the custom GLM-5.3 License. The model card documents local serving with SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, Transformers, KTransformers, Unsloth, and Ascend-compatible inference frameworks.
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Current
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing recordZ.AI GLM-5.3 model card
- Self-host
- Open weights available; hardware estimate not sourced
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
GLM-5.3 ranks #27 of 201 on the public leaderboard with a score of 65.44/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
GLM-5.3 is a open weight model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Z.AI now publishes the 753.33B-parameter FP8 checkpoint under the custom GLM-5.3 License. The model card documents local serving with SGLang, vLLM, TokenSpeed, Transformers, KTransformers, Unsloth, and Ascend-compatible inference frameworks.
GLM-5.3 sits in the GLM-5 family with GLM-5, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.1, GLM-5.3-Flash, GLM-5-Turbo, GLM-5V-Turbo, GLM-5 (Reasoning). Its explicit predecessor is GLM-5.2. 25 of 486 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #9, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #33. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Last updated September 28, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Deployment options
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Published weights are available, but BenchLM does not yet have a sourced parameter and VRAM profile for this exact model. Hardware cost estimates stay unavailable until that sizing record is complete.
Estimate VRAM from known parametersQuestions
How does GLM-5.3 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
GLM-5.3 ranks #27 out of 201 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 65.44/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 25 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is GLM-5.3 good for knowledge and understanding?
GLM-5.3 ranks #33 out of 160 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 61.9/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is GLM-5.3 good for coding and programming?
GLM-5.3 ranks #22 out of 136 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 56.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is GLM-5.3 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
GLM-5.3 ranks #9 out of 111 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 67.3/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is GLM-5.3 open source?
GLM-5.3 is an open-weight model from Z.AI. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.
Which sibling models are related to GLM-5.3?
GLM-5.3 belongs to the GLM-5 family. Related tracked variants include GLM-5, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.1, plus 4 more. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does GLM-5.3 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. GLM-5.3 currently has 48 source-displayable rows across 486 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of GLM-5.3?
GLM-5.3 has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.