GLM-5.3-Flash
Not listed in any tool yet.
VerdictPal · editorial desk · updated 16 Oct 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-Flash4stats won
Tied2stats
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next0stats won
Spec showdown
Capacity, price, freshness.
GLM-5.3-FlashvsQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Composite scores are within 5 points — 69 for GLM-5.3-Flash vs 68 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. The choice comes down to capability profile and price. GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher benchmark mix (69 vs 68). GLM-5.3-Flash's 1M context window dwarfs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 262K — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.
- Composite scoreGLM-5.3-Flash69Winner on this rowQwen3.8-Flash-Next68
- Benchmark mixGLM-5.3-Flash69Winner on this rowQwen3.8-Flash-Next68
- Context windowGLM-5.3-Flash1MWinner on this rowQwen3.8-Flash-Next262K
- Max outputGLM-5.3-Flash—Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—
- Input price / 1M (lower wins)GLM-5.3-Flash$0.15Qwen3.8-Flash-Next$0.15
- Output speed (AA default API)GLM-5.3-Flash61 t/sWinner on this rowQwen3.8-Flash-Next51 t/s
Composite score
vs
Benchmark mix
vs
Context window
vs
Max output
vs
Input price / 1M (lower wins)
vs
Output speed (AA default API)
vs
Capability grid
What each model can do.
Modalities
Access
Family profile
Top score per benchmark family.
Reasoning
vs
Coding
vs
Agentic
vs
Long context
vs
Benchmark ranks
Every shared benchmark, side by side.
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond#33/184 · #25/184
vs
Humanity's Last Exam#44/186 · #52/186
vs
Coding
SciCode#38/97 · #45/97
vs
Agentic
Terminal-Bench#16/167 · #12/167
vs
Long context
AA-LCR#41/184 · #47/184
vs
Performance
AA output speed#100/195 · #120/195
vs
Dossier facts
Dates, sources, fineprint.
Ecosystem
Which tools wrap each model.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not listed in any tool yet.
Verdict
Which model to actually pick.
Composite scores are within 5 points — 69 for GLM-5.3-Flash vs 68 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. The choice comes down to capability profile and price. GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher benchmark mix (69 vs 68). GLM-5.3-Flash's 1M context window dwarfs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 262K — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.
Questions this comparison answers
Every answer below is assembled from the dated fields on this page. Nothing is written separately for search.
Should you use GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
Composite scores are within 5 points — 69 for GLM-5.3-Flash vs 68 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. The choice comes down to capability profile and price. GLM-5.3-Flash has the higher benchmark mix (69 vs 68). GLM-5.3-Flash's 1M context window dwarfs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's 262K — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.
Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next cheaper?
GLM-5.3-Flash: $0.15 / $0.50. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: $0.15 / $0.47.
How do the GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next context windows compare?
GLM-5.3-Flash: 1M. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: 262K.