ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5 Flash

GLM-5.3-Flash comes out ahead, 80 to 75 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.5 Flash is 26% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-5.3-Flash

    Released Aug 26, 2026

    80/100
    • ECI151.9
    • Price$0.15 / $0.50
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove GLM-5.3-Flash

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    75/100
    • ECI144.0
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

GLM-5.3-Flash is our pick

GLM-5.3-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Qwen3.5 Flash (75). It leads on capability and inputs & features. Qwen3.5 Flash wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGLM-5.3-FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3-Flash 151.9 · Qwen3.5 Flash 144.0
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · GLM-5.3-Flash $0.237 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameGLM-5.3-Flash 1,000,000 · Qwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Video · Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingGLM-5.3-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.5 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8171
Price25%7986
Inputs & features15%9080
Context window10%6060
Overall100%80/10075/100
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 Qwen3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationGLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)151.9 (best)144.0
ECI rank#42 of 148 (best)#82 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions90.2% (best)82.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics55.8% (best)18.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics93.9% (best)84.4%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—20.3%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15$0.10 (best)
Output$0.50$0.40 (best)
Cached input$0.03$0.01 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.237$0.175 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYeslow · high · maxYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model IDglm-5.3-flashqwen3.5-flash
API providers65 (best)8
ReleasedAug 26, 2026Feb 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
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
  • Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.5 Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Qwen3.5 Flash (75). It leads on capability and inputs & features. Qwen3.5 Flash wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $0.237 for GLM-5.3-Flash (1.4× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GLM-5.3-Flash 151.9 (#42 of 148) and Qwen3.5 Flash 144.0 (#82 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (149.4–154.3 vs 141.6–145.5), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GLM-5.3-Flash 90.2%, Qwen3.5 Flash 82.3%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — GLM-5.3-Flash 55.8%, Qwen3.5 Flash 18.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GLM-5.3-Flash 93.9%, Qwen3.5 Flash 84.4%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GLM-5.3-Flash 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 Qwen3.5 Flash share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: GLM-5.3-Flash up to 131,072, Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GLM-5.3-Flash accepts text, images, PDFs and video; Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video. 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; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the newest, released Aug 26, 2026. Qwen3.5 Flash came out Feb 23, 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 Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons