Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Qwen Turbo

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

27.1

Rank #335 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3 leads 62.3 to 15.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 91.1% for GLM-5.3 and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
  • Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
  • GLM-5.3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5.3 and Qwen Turbo specifications
GLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.827.1
Released2026-08-142024-11-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.20
Results tracked423

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Qwen Turbo: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
LMArena WebDev1622—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
LMArena Coding1496—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Qwen Turbo: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Qwen Turbo: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1489—
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 Turbo: 15.3 (#297)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%6.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
ProofBench49%—
LMArena Math1489—
MATH Level 5—56.2%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond90.9%41.8%
SimpleQA Verified41%—
LMArena Expert1516—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Qwen Turbo: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1457—
LMArena Chinese1528—
LMArena French1499—
LMArena German1499—
LMArena Japanese1453—
LMArena Korean1472—
LMArena Russian1463—
LMArena Spanish1460—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Qwen Turbo: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Qwen Turbo: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Qwen Turbo: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen Turbo
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1457—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Qwen Turbo?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

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

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper