Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 39× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3 leads 62.3 to 38.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 68.8% for GLM-5.3 and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 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-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.839.9
Released2026-08-142026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.13
Results tracked427

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%43.8%
Chess Puzzles21%23%
Mystery Game Puzzles33%15%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61144.64
CritPt19.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1489—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%86.7%
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
ProofBench49%—
LMArena Math1489—

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond90.9%82.3%
SimpleQA Verified41%—
LMArena Expert1516—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1457—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 39× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 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 Qwen3.7 Flash share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper