GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
GLM-5.3-Flash 
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Verdict
- GLM-5.3-Flash leads on quality: 63.9 vs 61.6.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in coding, composite.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is 1.9× cheaper ($0.119 vs $0.230 per 1M blended).
- GLM-5.3-Flash streams 1.8× faster (98 vs 55 tokens per second).
| Metric | GLM-5.3-Flash | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.9 | 61.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 68.0 | 65.8 |
| Coding score | 64.0 | 71.2 |
| Composite score | 61.7 | 67.4 |
| Human preference score | 67.6 | – |
| Knowledge score | 67.8 | 59.6 |
| Long context score | 66.5 | 66.3 |
| Maths score | 71.0 | – |
| Multimodal score | 65.3 | 64.3 |
| Reasoning score | 70.3 | 63.4 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.119 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 98 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 22.9 s | 39.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 256k |
| SciCode | 46.1% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.4 | – |
| LMArena Text | 1475 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1498 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1525 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1607 | 1635 |
| LMArena Vision | 1299 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 1.1 | -0.1 |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | 76.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 77.6% | 87.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | 79.0% | 72.5% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 56.8% | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 81.2% | 85.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 76.4% | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Language | 77.3% | 74.6% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.8% | 77.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.9 | 39.9 |
| AA-LCR | 80.0% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 7.5 | -9.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.2% | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.9% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.6% | 50.6% |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 11.1% |
| GDPval (AA) | 57.8% | 57.4% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 47.2% | 45.4% |
| 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-Flash-Next: questions
- Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- GLM-5.3-Flash leads on quality: 63.9 vs 61.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GLM-5.3-Flash 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-Flash-Next for coding?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in coding (71 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in agentic tasks (68 vs 66 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper: $0.119 against $0.230 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- GLM-5.3-Flash streams faster: 98 against 55 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M against 256k tokens.