ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  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 sameClaude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 · GLM-5.3-Flash 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGLM-5.3-FlashClaude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · GLM-5.3-Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Video
  • Self-hostingGLM-5.3-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 5.5GLM-5.3-Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8980
Price25%8076
Inputs & features15%8090
Context window10%6060
Overall100%83/10079/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 5.5AnthropicGLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)160.4 (best)153.2
ECI rank#14 of 165 (best)#48 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions89.7%90.2% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics75.1% (best)55.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics98.9% (best)93.9%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions23.8%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$0.15
Output$0.50$0.50
Cached input$0.01 (best)$0.03
Blended (3:1)$0.20 (best)$0.237
Long-context rateOver 100K: $0.50 / $2.50Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Z.AI API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · high · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model IDclaude-haiku-5-5glm-5.3-flash
API providers3380 (best)
ReleasedOct 7, 2026Aug 26, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJun 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.

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

Which should you choose?

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

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, Claude Haiku 5.5 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

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 Claude Haiku 5.5 and GLM-5.3-Flash 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?

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

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; GLM-5.3-Flash accepts text, images, PDFs 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; 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