Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #181 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 35.5.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index51.838.8
Released2026-08-20—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4014

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Coding15081314
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Hard Prompts14911299
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Math15001298
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Expert15131289
GPQA Diamond90.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Non-English14621265
LMArena Chinese15271314
LMArena German14701231
LMArena Japanese14291207
LMArena Russian14691271
LMArena French1496—
LMArena Korean1446—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Instruction Following14781275

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Longer Query14821292

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Text14711299
LMArena Creative Writing14421262
LMArena Multi-Turn14671299

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper