VerdictPal · editorial desk · updated 1 Sep 2026VerdictPal
Compare · Two models, head-to-head

Pick two models. See the diff.

Composite scores, benchmark ranks, capability grids, and pricing per million tokens. All sourced from the same data that powers the model atlas.

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

GLM-5.3-Flash2stats won
Tied3stats
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next2stats won
Spec showdown

Capacity, price, freshness.

GLM-5.3-FlashvsQwen3.8-Flash-Next

Composite scores are within 5 points — 63 for GLM-5.3-Flash vs 63 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. The choice comes down to capability profile and price. GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher Vals/AA intelligence score (58 vs 56). GLM-5.3-Flash's 1M context window dwarfs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 262K — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.

  1. Composite score
    GLM-5.3-Flash63Qwen3.8-Flash-Next63
  2. Intelligence (Vals/AA)
    GLM-5.3-Flash58Winner on this rowQwen3.8-Flash-Next56
  3. Context window
    GLM-5.3-Flash1MWinner on this rowQwen3.8-Flash-Next262K
  4. Max output
    GLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.8-Flash-Next
  5. Input price / 1M (lower wins)
    GLM-5.3-Flash$0.15Qwen3.8-Flash-Next$0.15
  6. Output speed (AA default API)
    GLM-5.3-Flash42 t/sQwen3.8-Flash-Next87 t/sWinner on this row
  7. Time to first token (AA default API)
    GLM-5.3-Flash1.41sQwen3.8-Flash-Next1.27sWinner on this row
Composite score
63
vs
63
Intelligence (Vals/AA)
58Winner on this row
vs
56
Context window
1MWinner on this row
vs
262K
Max output
vs
Input price / 1M (lower wins)
$0.15
vs
$0.15
Output speed (AA default API)
42 t/s
vs
87 t/sWinner on this row
Time to first token (AA default API)
1.41s
vs
1.27sWinner on this row
Capability grid

What each model can do.

Modalities

GLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Text
Image
Audio
Video
Code
Tool use
Reasoning

Access

GLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.8-Flash-Next
API
Consumer app
Open weights
Managed cloud
On-device
Family profile

Top score per benchmark family.

Reasoning
91
vs
92Winner on this row
Coding
46
vs
47Winner on this row
Agentic
84
vs
86Winner on this row
Long context
78Winner on this row
vs
77
Benchmark ranks

Every shared benchmark, side by side.

Reasoning

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index#13/184 · #20/184
57.5%Winner on this row
vs
55.8%
GPQA Diamond#29/185 · #21/185
91.2%
vs
92.3%Winner on this row
Humanity's Last Exam#36/180 · #42/180
39.9%Winner on this row
vs
38%

Coding

SciCode#73/180 · #67/180
46.1%
vs
46.9%Winner on this row

Agentic

Terminal-Bench#12/184 · #8/184
84.27%
vs
86.14%Winner on this row
τ³-Bench Banking#6/106 · #8/106
47.22%Winner on this row
vs
45.36%

Long context

AA-LCR#20/179 · #30/179
78%Winner on this row
vs
77%

Performance

AA output speed#76/185 · #46/185
42 t/s
vs
87 t/sWinner on this row
AA time to first token#48/185 · #54/185
1.41s
vs
1.27sWinner on this row
Dossier facts

Dates, sources, fineprint.

GLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.8-Flash-Next
ProviderZhipuAlibaba
FamilyGLMQwen
Release date2026-08-262026-08-26
Knowledge cutoffunpublishedunpublished
Context window1M262K
Max output
Input price /1M$0.15$0.15
Output price /1M$0.50$0.47
Statussolidsolid
Composite score6363
Intelligence score5856
Intel sourceaaaa
Benchmark rows99
Source count11
Freshnessfreshfresh
Pricing checked2026-09-012026-09-01
Ecosystem

Which tools wrap each model.

GLM-5.3-Flash

Not listed in any tool yet.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not listed in any tool yet.

Verdict

Which model to actually pick.

Composite scores are within 5 points — 63 for GLM-5.3-Flash vs 63 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. The choice comes down to capability profile and price. GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher Vals/AA intelligence score (58 vs 56). GLM-5.3-Flash's 1M context window dwarfs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 262K — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.