Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.3 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.3 leads 46.1 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 8% for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and 49% for GLM-5.3.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper at $0.26 / $0.38 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
- GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 44.3 | 54.8 |
| Released | 2025-09-29 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 164K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.26 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.38 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 42 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 46.5 (#65), GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1362 | 1622 |
| SciCode | 38.9% | 59% |
| WeirdML | 39.5% | 75.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1496 |
| DeepSWE | — | 69% |
| FrontierCode | — | 40.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 70% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 74.2% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 42.6% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 59% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 30.2% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,317 |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 32.7 (#59), GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 21.3% | 56.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,034 | 8,164 |
| Terminal-Bench | 39.6% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.7% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 42.9% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 22.1 (#208), GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 36.7% | 74.2% |
| CritPt | 2.9% | 19.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1434 | 1489 |
| DTBench | 87.7% | 87.7% |
| LMCA | 29.1% | 55.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.27 | 155.61 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 57% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 65% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 33% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
Math GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 41.7 (#87), GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 87.8% | 91.1% |
| ProofBench | 8% | 49% |
| LMArena Math | 1435 | 1489 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 68.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 57.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 22.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 51.7 (#66), GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.4% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1436 | 1516 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.3% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 52.2 (#90), GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1457 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1461 | 1528 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1499 |
| LMArena German | 1440 | 1499 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1374 | 1453 |
| LMArena Korean | 1371 | 1472 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1463 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1440 | 1460 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 74.5 (#93), GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1413 | 1477 |
Long Context DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 47.6 (#16), GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1482 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| CL-bench | 13.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 9.5% | — |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 62.4 (#77), GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1425 | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1403 | 1457 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1515 | 2075 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1472 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp better than GLM-5.3?
GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or GLM-5.3?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper. It lists at $0.26 per million input tokens and $0.38 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or GLM-5.3 better for coding?
GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 46.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and GLM-5.3 share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has 49 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3 has 42.