Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 70 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-5.3-Flash
79/100- ECI151.9
- Price$0.15 / $0.50
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
GLM-5.3-Flash is our pick
GLM-5.3-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-Flash $0.237 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-Flash 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGLM-5.3-FlashQwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video · GLM-5.3-Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 Flash Next | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 76 | 79 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 79/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) | GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 151.9 |
| ECI rank | — | #42 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 90.2% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 55.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 93.9% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.15 (best) |
| Output | $0.50 | $0.50 |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.275 | $0.237 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 5 providers | Official Z.AI API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Openqwen-community-1.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | glm-5.3-flash |
| API providers | 5 | 65 (best) |
| Released | Aug 27, 2026 | Aug 26, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
- GLM-5.3-Flash$2.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 Flash Next or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 Flash Next or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Qwen3.8 Flash Next costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.237 per million tokens for GLM-5.3-Flash versus $0.275 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet and GLM-5.3-Flash has an ECI of 151.9.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 Flash Next and GLM-5.3-Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.3-Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072, GLM-5.3-Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video; 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?
Yes, both publish their weights (qwen-community-1.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the newest, released Aug 27, 2026. GLM-5.3-Flash came out Aug 26, 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.
