GLM 5.3 Flash
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Zhipu AI · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by Zhipu AI featuring Agent-Centric Fast MoE architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
1M context autonomous agent tool invocation, fast Chinese-English translation, and real-time customer intelligence.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.15/1M in · $0.5/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
GLM 5.3 Flash is 81.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (5.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (10ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
GLM 5.3 Flash is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (190ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet). Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 63.7% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
GLM 5.3 Flash is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (520ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 70.3% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Claude Opus 5
GLM 5.3 Flash is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (210ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Codestral 25.01
GLM 5.3 Flash is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $0.90 for output tokens (2.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (20ms faster than Codestral 25.01). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Codestral 25.01.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Composer 2.5
GLM 5.3 Flash is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (12.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (50ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs DeepSeek-R1
GLM 5.3 Flash is 72.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (3.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (1670ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek-R1.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3
DeepSeek-V3 is 6.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (210ms faster than DeepSeek-V3). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek-V3.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
DeepSeek-V4 Flash is 6.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.56 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (20ms faster than DeepSeek-V4 Flash). DeepSeek-V4 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 62.4% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Fable 5
GLM 5.3 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (110ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (250ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 48.0% for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 46.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (55ms faster than GLM 5.3 Flash). Gemini 3.7 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 68.2% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs OpenAI GPT-4o
GLM 5.3 Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (150ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Luna
GLM 5.3 Flash is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.18 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $0.72 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (40ms faster than GLM 5.3 Flash). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 48.5% for GPT-5.6 Luna.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol
GLM 5.3 Flash is 98.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (53.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (290ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). GPT-5.6 Sol leads coding benchmarks at 79.5% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GLM 5.3 Flash is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (10.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (80ms faster than GPT-5.6 Terra). GPT-5.6 Terra leads coding benchmarks at 65.4% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Grok 3
GLM 5.3 Flash is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (720ms faster than Grok 3). Grok 3 leads coding benchmarks at 58.5% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs xAI Grok 4.6
GLM 5.3 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (150ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
GLM 5.3 Flash is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.18 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (290ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Mistral Large 2
GLM 5.3 Flash is 92.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (13.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (420ms faster than Mistral Large 2). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 39.0% for Mistral Large 2.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs OpenAI o1
GLM 5.3 Flash is 99.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (100.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (720ms faster than OpenAI o1). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 48.9% for OpenAI o1.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs o3-mini
GLM 5.3 Flash is 86.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (7.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (1070ms faster than o3-mini). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 49.3% for o3-mini.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (20ms faster than GLM 5.3 Flash). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 42.1% for Microsoft Phi-4 (14B).
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
GLM 5.3 Flash is 57.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (2.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (290ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 44.0% for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen 2.5 Max
GLM 5.3 Flash is 46.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.28 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $0.84 for output tokens (1.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (350ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). GLM 5.3 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 54.2% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Qwen 2.5 Max.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (10ms faster than GLM 5.3 Flash). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does GLM 5.3 Flash cost per 1M tokens?
GLM 5.3 Flash costs $0.15 per million prompt (input) tokens and $0.50 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash supports a maximum context window of 1,024,000 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 32,768 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for GLM 5.3 Flash?
1M context autonomous agent tool invocation, fast Chinese-English translation, and real-time customer intelligence.