Model comparison
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.7 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierCode: 31.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 10.2% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 49.6 | 45.0 |
| Released | 2026-08-20 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 36 | 32 |
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: 53.7 (#26), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.1 (#200)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 31.8% | 10.2% |
| SciCode | 51.6% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1506 | 1473 |
| DeepSWE | 63.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1614 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 303.55 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.2 (#130)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 52.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69), Qwen3.7 Plus: 38.4 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 15.4% | 9.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1490 | 1460 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 8% | 17% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.9 | 147.39 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| DTBench | — | 84% |
| LMCA | — | 37.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 52.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38), Qwen3.7 Plus: 49.3 (#47)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 55.8% | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1467 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 21% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#46)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1512 | 1467 |
Multimodal GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.2 (#30)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1304 | 1281 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24), Qwen3.7 Plus: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1462 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1495 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1457 | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | 1411 |
| LMArena Korean | 1443 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1472 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | 1453 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.9 (#49)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1480 | 1439 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#61)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1454 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.5 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1454 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | 1459 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.
Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.