GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
GLM-5.3-Flash 
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B Verdict
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads on quality: 65.2 vs 63.9.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is stronger in coding, human preference, knowledge, maths, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is stronger in agents & tools, composite, long context, reasoning.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is 25× cheaper ($0.119 vs $3.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM-5.3-Flash streams 2.6× faster (98 vs 38 tokens per second).
| Metric | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.9 | 65.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 68.0 | 78.3 |
| Coding score | 64.0 | – |
| Composite score | 61.7 | 79.8 |
| Human preference score | 67.6 | – |
| Knowledge score | 67.8 | 66.3 |
| Long context score | 66.5 | 66.6 |
| Maths score | 71.0 | – |
| Multimodal score | 65.3 | – |
| Reasoning score | 70.3 | 80.5 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.119 | $3.00 |
| Output speed | 98 tok/s | 38 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 22.9 s | 55.2 s |
| Context window | 1M | 984k |
| SciCode | 46.1% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.4 | – |
| LMArena Text | 1475 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1498 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1525 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1607 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1299 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 1.1 | – |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 77.6% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 79.0% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 56.8% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 81.2% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 76.4% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 77.3% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.8% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.9 | 40.0 |
| AA-LCR | 80.0% | 80.3% |
| AA-Omniscience | 7.5 | 4.3 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.2% | 93.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.9% | 42.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.6% | 54.0% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 20.0% |
| GDPval (AA) | 57.8% | 56.4% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 47.2% | 49.1% |
| LMArena Maths | 1513 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1471 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1475 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1476 | – |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: questions
- Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads on quality: 65.2 vs 63.9. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores higher in agentic tasks (78 vs 68 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper: $0.119 against $3.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
- GLM-5.3-Flash streams faster: 98 against 38 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M against 984k tokens.