GLM-5.3
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 vs Qwen3.8 27B
GLM-5.31stats won
Tied1stats
Qwen3.8 27B4stats won
Spec showdown
Capacity, price, freshness.
GLM-5.3vsQwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B leads on composite score (66 vs 54), with deeper benchmark coverage across more families. Qwen3.8 27B has the higher benchmark mix (66 vs 54). Qwen3.8 27B is more affordable at $0.50/1M input — about 3× cheaper than $1.4/1M. Qwen3.8 27B's 262K context window dwarfs GLM-5.3's 0 — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.
- Composite scoreGLM-5.354Qwen3.8 27B66Winner on this row
- Benchmark mixGLM-5.354Qwen3.8 27B66Winner on this row
- Context windowGLM-5.3UnlistedQwen3.8 27B262KWinner on this row
- Max outputGLM-5.3—Qwen3.8 27B—
- Input price / 1M (lower wins)GLM-5.3$1.4Qwen3.8 27B$0.50Winner on this row
- Output speed (AA default API)GLM-5.366 t/sWinner on this rowQwen3.8 27B46 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#29/184 · #41/184
vs
Humanity's Last Exam#34/186 · #66/186
vs
Coding
SciCode#6/97 · #60/97
vs
Agentic
Terminal-Bench#18/167 · #26/167
vs
Long context
AA-LCR#45/184 · #24/184
vs
Performance
AA output speed#92/195 · #124/195
vs
Dossier facts
Dates, sources, fineprint.
Ecosystem
Which tools wrap each model.
Qwen3.8 27B
Not listed in any tool yet.
Verdict
Which model to actually pick.
Qwen3.8 27B leads on composite score (66 vs 54), with deeper benchmark coverage across more families. Qwen3.8 27B has the higher benchmark mix (66 vs 54). Qwen3.8 27B is more affordable at $0.50/1M input — about 3× cheaper than $1.4/1M. Qwen3.8 27B's 262K context window dwarfs GLM-5.3's 0 — 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 or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B leads on composite score (66 vs 54), with deeper benchmark coverage across more families. Qwen3.8 27B has the higher benchmark mix (66 vs 54). Qwen3.8 27B is more affordable at $0.50/1M input — about 3× cheaper than $1.4/1M. Qwen3.8 27B's 262K context window dwarfs GLM-5.3's 0 — a meaningful difference for long-document or codebase work.
Is GLM-5.3 or Qwen3.8 27B cheaper?
GLM-5.3: $1.4 / $4.4. Qwen3.8 27B: $0.50 / $3.0.
How do the GLM-5.3 and Qwen3.8 27B context windows compare?
GLM-5.3: Unlisted. Qwen3.8 27B: 262K.