GLM-5.3-Flash
Open WeightsDeveloped by Zhipu AI · Lightweight High-Throughput Transformer · Modalities: Text, Code · Released 2026-02-22
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for GLM-5.3-Flash?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 67.6/100Architectural & Production Profile
Sub-100ms high-throughput open-weight model with 256k context for real-time classification and agent routing.
Sub-100ms ultra-fast inference model designed for real-time customer support, document classification, and agentic workflows.
- Architecture
- Lightweight High-Throughput Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Code
- Max Output Tokens
- 16,384 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $0.190 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting GLM-5.3-Flash
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhipu AI BigModel Platform → | Primary Host | $0.12 | $0.40 | 90ms | 175 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.12/1M in · $0.40/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.030/1M read · $0.12/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving GLM-5.3-Flash (36)
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon
GLM-5.3-Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (760ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 175 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 93.8% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
GLM-5.3-Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (290ms faster than Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with 175 vs. 84 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 84.2% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5
GLM-5.3-Flash is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (590ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 175 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 93.2% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 52.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $1.50 for output tokens (2.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (15ms faster than Gemini 3.8 Flash) with 175 vs. 210 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 79.2% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-5
GLM-5.3-Flash is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (250ms faster than GPT-5) with 175 vs. 105 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 85.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-6 Astra
GLM-5.3-Flash is 98.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (83.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (650ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 175 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 96.0% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash is 90.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (11.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (430ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 175 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 90.1% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek R1
GLM-5.3-Flash is 78.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (4.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (1360ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 175 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 63.5% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
GLM-5.3-Flash is 45.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.22 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.65 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (220ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 175 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 91.3% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs OpenAI o3
GLM-5.3-Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (1060ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 175 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 87.7% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude 4 Opus
GLM-5.3-Flash is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (830ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 175 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 87.1% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
GLM-5.3-Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (450ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 175 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 78.5% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (330ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 175 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 82.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Grok 4
GLM-5.3-Flash is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (390ms faster than Grok 4) with 175 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 86.2% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick
GLM-5.3-Flash is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (45ms faster than Llama 4 Maverick) with 175 vs. 175 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 73.8% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
GLM-5.3-Flash is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (190ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 175 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 91.7% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (12ms faster than GLM-5.3-Flash) with 265 vs. 175 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 68.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs OpenAI o4-mini
GLM-5.3-Flash is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (590ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 175 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 81.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs DeepSeek V3
GLM-5.3-Flash is 14.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.14 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.28 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (320ms faster than DeepSeek V3) with 175 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 63.5% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT and GLM-5.3-Flash share identical input pricing at $0.12 per 1M tokens ($0.36 vs. $0.40 output). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (25ms faster than Gemma 4 31B IT) with 175 vs. 155 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 71.2% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs OpenAI o3-mini
GLM-5.3-Flash is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (860ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 175 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 63.5% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
GLM-5.3-Flash is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (100ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku) with 175 vs. 130 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 63.5% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
GLM-5.3-Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (220ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 175 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 63.5% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (190ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash) with 175 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 63.5% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (20ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Flash) with 175 vs. 180 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 70.5% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (610ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 175 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 74.0% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-4o
GLM-5.3-Flash is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (190ms faster than GPT-4o) with 175 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 63.5% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-4o Mini
GLM-5.3-Flash is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (130ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 175 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 63.5% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GLM-5.3-Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (430ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 175 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 92.4% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Grok 3
GLM-5.3-Flash is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (530ms faster than Grok 3) with 175 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 84.6% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Grok 3 Mini
GLM-5.3-Flash is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $1.20 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (60ms faster than Grok 3 Mini) with 175 vs. 160 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 Mini leads coding evaluations at 54.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 68.0% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct share identical input pricing at $0.12 per 1M tokens ($0.40 vs. $0.30 output). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (55ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 175 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 63.5% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
GLM-5.3-Flash is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (290ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 175 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 63.5% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs o1
GLM-5.3-Flash is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (2510ms faster than o1) with 175 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 63.5% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen 3.8 27B
GLM-5.3-Flash is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (30ms faster than Qwen 3.8 27B) with 175 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 68.0% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3-Flash is 65.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $1.00 for output tokens (2.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (70ms faster than GLM-5.3) with 175 vs. 120 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3 leads coding evaluations at 56.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 67.0% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does GLM-5.3-Flash cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.030 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 75%.
What are GLM-5.3-Flash's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
GLM-5.3-Flash achieves 52.8% on SWE-bench Verified, 89% on HumanEval coding, 63.5% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 78.4% on MMLU-Pro, and 84% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 76.7/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash supports a 262,144 token context window (16,384 max output tokens) and operates at 90ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 175 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for GLM-5.3-Flash?
Sub-100ms ultra-fast inference model designed for real-time customer support, document classification, and agentic workflows.