GLM-5.3-Flash
Unavailable in this round
Z.ai
GLM-5.3-Flash combines openly available weights with a natively multimodal API. Z.ai lists 320B total parameters, 18B active parameters, a 1M-token context, and text, image, video, and file inputs. The checkpoint is aimed at coding and office work where code, interfaces, and documents meet.
Z.ai describes sparse and linear attention with mHC. Reasoning cannot be disabled in the API; only low, high, and max effort levels are available.
| Specification | Value and source |
|---|---|
| Weights | Open weightsSource |
| Access | API, LocalSource |
| Parameters | 320BSource |
| Active parameters | 18BSource |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokensSource |
| Notes | Natively multimodal open-weights MoE with 320B total parameters, 18B active parameters, and a 1M-token context window.Source |
| License | MITSource |
| Architecture | hybrid sparse + linear attention with mHC; natively multimodalSource |
| Parameters | 320 BSource |
| Active parameters | 18 BSource |
| Input | Text, Image, VideoSource |
| Output | TextSource |
| Tool calling | YesSource |
| Training tokens | 30T multimodal pretraining tokensSource |
| API model ID | glm-5.3-flash (API-model identifier is supported by the read card identity; the separate API guide was not successfully opened.)Source |
| Reasoning mode | Thinking and non-thinking modes; reasoning effort: low, high, max (default max).Source |
Benchmark meta-analysis
These Gradually indexes place selected published measurements on a 0 to 100 scale. They are not accuracy percentages and do not guarantee results in your application.
Retrieval dates of the sources used 2026-10-15 - 2026-10-19
Not enough coverage for a score yet
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 42.4 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 47.0 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 19.0 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 62.8 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 66.7 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Not enough coverage for a score yet
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 71.5 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Index 70.1 / 100
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Not enough coverage for a score yet
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Not enough coverage for a score yet
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Not enough coverage for a score yet
provisional
Published configurations differ within this comparison cohort. Treat the index as provisional.
Method version: benchmark-meta-score-v1
The index includes active measurements from reviewed primary sources when at least five models are compared in the same documented comparison slice across dataset, harness, agent, tools, and trial count. Each benchmark series and evaluator contributes one shared setup slice from the newest capture; when dates match, the wider slice is used. When one source and series include several explicitly documented reasoning tiers, the highest documented tier (none through max) is selected, never the best result value. The explicit source label “Non-reasoning” is treated as none. When selecting between multiple results, unknown or ambiguous tiers exclude the model from that series. Unambiguous single configurations do not require a tier ordering. The best individual result for each model is not selected. Equal raw values share the same rank percentile. Multiple series from the same evaluator within a family receive equal weight; evaluators within a family, families within an area, and areas in the overall index then receive equal weight. Unmeasured series remain visible in coverage and bounds. An overall score requires at least four areas, six test families, and two sources. An area score requires at least two test families. Every overall and area score also requires at least 50% of its panel weight.
Published model-specific parameters can differ. This is not a controlled experiment; comparisons with such differences are marked provisional.
Unmeasured portions are not entered as zero. They reduce coverage and contribute only to the displayed bounds. Scores with different coverage are therefore not equally complete.
The bounds hold observed percentiles fixed and allow missing contributions anywhere from 0 to 100. They are not confidence intervals or predictions of future recalculations.
The source count is not a count of independent experiments.
OECD handbook on composite indicatorsAll 40 test families and 12 of 45 raw measurements are listed here. The complete calculation for every model is available in the JSON export.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.43 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.6 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.6 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.6 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.6 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.6 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 2.38 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.43 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Published configurations differ within this cohort.
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 50 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.43 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.79 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.79 % · Coverage of this test family: 50 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 50 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 83 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 7.14 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.79 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.79 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.79 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 2.38 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 2.38 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.43 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.6 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.43 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 1.02 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Nominal family weight in the overall panel: 0.48 % · Coverage of this test family: 100 %
Each evaluator measures different capabilities under its own conditions. Test series, composite indices and their components stay separate. The detailed results below retain their scales, configurations and source dates.
| Evaluator | Test series | Composite indices | Recorded active measurements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis | 12 | 1 | 15 |
| Vals AI | 25 | 1 | 192 |
| LMArena | 3 | 0 | 42 |
| Epoch AI | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Coverage is not a quality ranking. Overlapping tests and multiple settings do not count as independent experiments. Vendor claims, historical and disputed results are excluded from this overview and remain labelled in the detailed evidence.
Page 1 of 22
| Sub-task | GLM-5.3-Flash (This model) | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| CLI | 7.35% | 35.63% (best value in this row) |
| COBOL | 60% | 70% (best value in this row) |
| Overall | 20.52% | 44.22% (best value in this row) |
higher is betterAs of October 15, 2026Source: Vals AIbars scaled within each row, not across rows
Code Quality
higher is betterAs of October 15, 2026Scale: 0 rating - 4.5 rating
| Sub-task | GLM-5.3-Flash (This model) | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | 67.86% | 72.08% (best value in this row) |
| Patch | 85.71% | 87.5% (best value in this row) |
| PoC | 50% | 56.67% (best value in this row) |
higher is betterAs of October 15, 2026Source: Vals AIbars scaled within each row, not across rows
Page 1 of 22
One SVG prompt and fixed output settings. Captures are shown only with 0 reported reasoning tokens or documented lack of reasoning controls. Identical test conditions do not make the models' internal compute identical.
Unavailable in this round
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.
GLM-5.3-Flash

Reasoning (requested): high
Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.
Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Task origin (Simon Willison)44.9 / 100