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 vs Qwen3.8 27B

GLM-5.32stats won
Tied1stats
Qwen3.8 27B4stats won
Spec showdown

Capacity, price, freshness.

GLM-5.3vsQwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B holds a narrow composite edge (60 vs 54), but the gap is small enough that other factors matter more. GLM-5.3 has the higher Vals/AA intelligence score (60 vs 52). 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.

  1. Composite score
    GLM-5.354Qwen3.8 27B60Winner on this row
  2. Intelligence (Vals/AA)
    GLM-5.360Winner on this rowQwen3.8 27B52
  3. Context window
    GLM-5.3UnlistedQwen3.8 27B262KWinner on this row
  4. Max output
    GLM-5.3Qwen3.8 27B
  5. Input price / 1M (lower wins)
    GLM-5.3$1.4Qwen3.8 27B$0.50Winner on this row
  6. Output speed (AA default API)
    GLM-5.373 t/sWinner on this rowQwen3.8 27B45 t/s
  7. Time to first token (AA default API)
    GLM-5.31.56sQwen3.8 27B1.21sWinner on this row
Composite score
54
vs
60Winner on this row
Intelligence (Vals/AA)
60Winner on this row
vs
52
Context window
Unlisted
vs
262KWinner on this row
Max output
vs
Input price / 1M (lower wins)
$1.4
vs
$0.50Winner on this row
Output speed (AA default API)
73 t/sWinner on this row
vs
45 t/s
Time to first token (AA default API)
1.56s
vs
1.21sWinner on this row
Capability grid

What each model can do.

Modalities

GLM-5.3Qwen3.8 27B
Text
Image
Audio
Video
Code
Tool use
Reasoning

Access

GLM-5.3Qwen3.8 27B
API
Consumer app
Open weights
Managed cloud
On-device
Family profile

Top score per benchmark family.

Reasoning
92Winner on this row
vs
91
Coding
57Winner on this row
vs
45
Agentic
84Winner on this row
vs
80
Long context
76
vs
77Winner on this row
Benchmark ranks

Every shared benchmark, side by side.

Reasoning

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index#9/184 · #31/184
59.5%Winner on this row
vs
52%
GPQA Diamond#25/185 · #39/185
91.7%Winner on this row
vs
90.5%
Humanity's Last Exam#26/180 · #57/180
42.3%Winner on this row
vs
33.9%

Coding

SciCode#7/180 · #84/180
56.5%Winner on this row
vs
44.7%

Agentic

Terminal-Bench#14/184 · #26/184
83.9%Winner on this row
vs
79.78%
τ³-Bench Banking#3/106 · #5/106
50.31%Winner on this row
vs
48.04%

Long context

AA-LCR#38/179 · #25/179
76.33%
vs
77.33%Winner on this row

Performance

AA output speed#54/185 · #73/185
73 t/sWinner on this row
vs
45 t/s
AA time to first token#41/185 · #57/185
1.56s
vs
1.21sWinner on this row
Dossier facts

Dates, sources, fineprint.

GLM-5.3Qwen3.8 27B
ProviderZhipuAlibaba
FamilyGLMQwen
Release date2026-08-142026-08-14
Knowledge cutoffunpublishedunpublished
Context windowUnlisted262K
Max output
Input price /1M$1.4$0.50
Output price /1M$4.4$3.0
Statussolidsolid
Composite score5460
Intelligence score6052
Intel sourceaaaa
Benchmark rows119
Source count21
Freshnessfreshfresh
Pricing checked2026-08-242026-08-24
Ecosystem

Which tools wrap each model.

GLM-5.3

Not listed in any tool yet.

Qwen3.8 27B

Not listed in any tool yet.

Verdict

Which model to actually pick.

Qwen3.8 27B holds a narrow composite edge (60 vs 54), but the gap is small enough that other factors matter more. GLM-5.3 has the higher Vals/AA intelligence score (60 vs 52). 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.