Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Qwen Max

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3 leads 62.3 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 91.1% for GLM-5.3 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-5.3 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • GLM-5.3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3Qwen Max
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.834.7
Released2026-08-142024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M33K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$6.40
Results tracked4223

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
LMArena Coding14961288
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
CursorBench42.6%—
LMArena WebDev1622—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14891269
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61—

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%16.1%
LMArena Math14891275
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
ProofBench49%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
GPQA Diamond90.9%56.1%
LMArena Expert15161248
SimpleQA Verified41%—

Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
LMArena Non-English14571263
LMArena Chinese15281254
LMArena French14991330
LMArena German14991254
LMArena Japanese14531205
LMArena Korean14721142
LMArena Russian14631274
LMArena Spanish14601290

Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14771262

Long Context GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14821288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Max
LMArena Text14711282
LMArena Creative Writing14571248
LMArena Multi-Turn14721277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Qwen Max?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or Qwen Max?

GLM-5.3 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is GLM-5.3 or Qwen Max better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Qwen Max share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper