ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5

Claude Haiku 5.5 comes out ahead, 83 to 79 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5.3-Flash

    Released Aug 26, 2026

    79/100
    • ECI153.2
    • Price$0.15 / $0.50
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove GLM-5.3-Flash
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 5.5

    Released Oct 7, 2026New

    83/100
    • ECI160.4
    • Price$0.10 / $0.50
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 5.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Haiku 5.5 is our pick

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against GLM-5.3-Flash (79). It leads on capability and price. GLM-5.3-Flash wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Haiku 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 · GLM-5.3-Flash 153.2
  • Lowest priceClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 $0.20 · GLM-5.3-Flash $0.237 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameGLM-5.3-Flash 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Video · Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingGLM-5.3-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-5.3-FlashClaude Haiku 5.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8089
Price25%7680
Inputs & features15%9080
Context window10%6060
Overall100%79/10083/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)153.2160.4 (best)
ECI rank#48 of 165#14 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions90.2% (best)89.7%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics55.8%75.1% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics93.9%98.9% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—23.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15$0.10 (best)
Output$0.50$0.50
Cached input$0.03$0.01 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.237$0.20 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 100K: $0.50 / $2.50
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYeslow · high · maxYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model IDglm-5.3-flashclaude-haiku-5-5
API providers80 (best)33
ReleasedAug 26, 2026Oct 7, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GLM-5.3-Flash$2.50
  • Claude Haiku 5.5$2.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-5.3-Flash or Claude Haiku 5.5?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against GLM-5.3-Flash (79). It leads on capability and price. GLM-5.3-Flash wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Claude Haiku 5.5?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Claude Haiku 5.5 versus $0.237 for GLM-5.3-Flash (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 (#14 of 165) and GLM-5.3-Flash 153.2 (#48 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (157.3–163.8 vs 150.9–155.4), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5.3-Flash 90.2%, Claude Haiku 5.5 89.7%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Haiku 5.5 75.1%, GLM-5.3-Flash 55.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%, GLM-5.3-Flash 93.9%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-5.3-Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3-Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5 share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.3-Flash up to 131,072, Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-5.3-Flash accepts text, images, PDFs and video; Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. GLM-5.3-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

GLM-5.3-Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 5.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the newest, released Oct 7, 2026. GLM-5.3-Flash came out Aug 26, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 5.5 Jun 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons