Z.ai mit Released Aug 26, 2026 Updated
GLM-5.3-Flash
ToolsGuide Scores, rankings, test results and price.
Model summary
- Text #32 / 419
498 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 513, tests 469
- Vision #48 / 167
433 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 504, tests 374
- Coding #40 / 151
403 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 453, tests 371
- Agents #28 / 57
464 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 448, tests 471
- Price per 1M tokens
In $0.15· Out $0.50
$0.15
Input · median text model $0.44
Summary
GLM-5.3-Flash is Z.ai's model, released Aug 26, 2026. It's ranked in 4 categories and does best at text: #32 of 419, with a ToolsGuide Score of 498 against a median of 252.
It also ranks #40 of 151 for coding (403), #48 of 167 for vision (433), #28 of 57 for agents (464).
It costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens, below the median text model ($0.44).
It has published results on 15 tests and has the top score on 3 of them, including Toolathlon and MVBench.
Specifications
- Creator
Z.ai- Licence
- mit
- Released
- Aug 26, 2026
- Context window
- 1M tokens
- Input price
- $0.15 / 1M
- Output price
- $0.50 / 1M
- Tests reported
- 15
- Settings ranked
- GLM-5.3-Flash
Model comparison
Against the ten best text models.
Text score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Coding score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Input price
USD per 1M input tokens · Lower is better
Leaderboards
Where GLM-5.3-Flash sits among the top 20 in each category.
Text
#32 of 419 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Vision
#48 of 167 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Coding
#40 of 151 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Agents
#28 of 57 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
By task
Scored from votes on each kind of prompt alone, on the same 1,000-point scale.
Score against price
Text · the 10 priced models ranked closest · up and to the left is better value
Against its nearest rivals
Text prompts by kind · ToolsGuide Score from votes · hover for values
-
GLM-5.3-Flash -
GPT-5.5 (High) -
Claude Opus 4.8 (High)
Text
GLM-5.3-Flash · hover a bar for its rank
Vision
GLM-5.3-Flash · hover a bar for its rank
Coding
GLM-5.3-Flash · hover a bar for its rank
Test results
Every test GLM-5.3-Flash has a published result on, out of 100%, with its rank among the models that took it.
Humanity's Last Exam
#14 / 115Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is a multi-modal academic benchmark with 2,500 questions across mathematics, humanities, and natural sciences, designed to test LLM capabilities at the frontier of human knowledge with unambiguous, verifiable solutions
55.3%
Self-reported · In the text score· In the vision score
CharXiv-R
#8 / 61Reading and reasoning about charts from scientific papers.
89.4%
Self-reported
Terminal-Bench 2.1
#16 / 53Terminal-Bench 2.1 is an updated release of the Terminal-Bench benchmark that tests AI agents' ability to operate a computer via the terminal. It evaluates how well models handle real-world, end-to-end tasks autonomously, including compiling code, training models, setting up servers, system administration, data science workflows, and security tasks.
84.3%
Self-reported
DeepSWE 1.1
#32 / 52DeepSWE 1.1 evaluates software engineering agents using the mini-swe-agent harness.
63.4%
Self-reported · In the coding score
Toolathlon
#1 / 42Tool Decathlon is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI agents' ability to use multiple tools across diverse task categories. It measures proficiency in tool selection, sequencing, and execution across ten different tool-use scenarios.
78.4%
Self-reported · In the agents score
AutomationBench
#7 / 27AutomationBench is a tool-use benchmark that evaluates AI agents on automating real-world workflows, testing their ability to orchestrate tools and complete multi-step automation tasks.
48.8%
Self-reported · In the agents score
Agents' Last Exam
#22 / 26Agents' Last Exam is a challenging benchmark for AI agents on hard, long-horizon tasks that test sustained reasoning, planning, and tool use, reported with and without tool access.
26.3%
Self-reported · In the agents score
NL2Repo
#8 / 25NL2Repo evaluates long-horizon coding capabilities including repository-level understanding, where models must generate or modify code across entire repositories from natural language specifications.
56.3%
Self-reported · In the coding score
BabyVision
#14 / 18A benchmark for early-stage visual reasoning and perception on child-like vision tasks.
53.4%
Self-reported
MVBench
#1 / 18A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark covering 20 challenging video tasks that require temporal understanding beyond single-frame analysis. Tasks span from perception to cognition, including action recognition, temporal reasoning, spatial reasoning, object interaction, scene transition, and counterfactual inference. Uses a novel static-to-dynamic method to systematically generate video tasks from existing annotations.
77.8%
Self-reported
GDPval-AA
#2 / 17GDPval-AA evaluates AI agents on economically valuable professional knowledge-work tasks and reports performance as an Elo score.
59.1%
Self-reported
Artificial Analysis
#2 / 13Artificial Analysis benchmark evaluates AI models across quality, speed, and pricing dimensions, providing a composite assessment of model capabilities for real-world usage.
57.0%
Self-reported
OfficeQA Pro
#9 / 13OfficeQA Pro evaluates AI models on professional knowledge-work questions and tasks drawn from real office workflows, including document analysis, spreadsheet reasoning, and information synthesis across business domains.
62.4%
Self-reported
Chartography
#7 / 7Chartography evaluates professional chart understanding with 100 expert-written tasks drawn from real charts across science, engineering, finance, manufacturing, supply chain, and healthcare.
78.0%
Self-reported
MMVU
#1 / 7MMVU (Multimodal Multi-disciplinary Video Understanding) is a benchmark for evaluating multimodal models on video understanding tasks across multiple disciplines, testing comprehension and reasoning capabilities on video content.
80.5%
Self-reported