GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max
GLM 5.3 Flash 
Qwen3.8 Max Verdict
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 62.2.
- GLM 5.3 Flash is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge, maths.
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) is stronger in coding, composite, human preference, long context, multimodal, reasoning.
- GLM 5.3 Flash is 13× cheaper ($0.238 vs $3.00 per 1M blended).
- GLM 5.3 Flash streams 1.4× faster (53 vs 37 tokens per second).
| Metric | GLM 5.3 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.2 | 64.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 62.7 | 58.2 |
| Coding score | 63.4 | 64.6 |
| Composite score | 58.6 | 70.7 |
| Human preference score | 67.0 | 68.0 |
| Knowledge score | 65.0 | 62.7 |
| Long context score | 65.2 | 65.4 |
| Maths score | 69.0 | 65.1 |
| Multimodal score | 64.2 | 66.2 |
| Reasoning score | 67.0 | 72.2 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.238 | $3.00 |
| Output speed | 53 tok/s | 37 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 41.0 s | 58.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Terminal-Bench | – | 27.0% |
| SciCode | 51.6% | 53.2% |
| APEX-Agents | 52.8% | 63.3% |
| ProofBench | – | 58.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.9 | 156.4 |
| LMArena Text | 1475 | 1483 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1501 | 1504 |
| LMArena Coding | 1525 | 1524 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1609 | 1672 |
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | 1314 |
| LMArena Agent | -1 | 2.3 |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | 78.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 77.6% | 88.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | 79.0% | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 56.8% | 64.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 81.2% | 91.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 76.4% | 78.4% |
| LiveBench Language | 77.3% | 79.7% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.8% | 74.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 41.8 | 45.4 |
| AA-LCR | 80.0% | 80.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 82.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 7.5 | 12.0 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.2% | 92.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.9% | 43.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.6% | 53.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 87.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 88.6% |
| IOI | – | 68.9% |
| LegalBench | – | 83.6% |
| CorpFin | – | 65.8% |
| TaxEval | – | 75.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 67.4% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 85.6% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 93.7% |
| Vals Index | – | 48.3 |
| CritPt | 15.4% | 20.0% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 57.2% | 58.6% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | 47.2% | 51.3% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 51.2% | 40.3% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 45.0% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 42.4% |
| Code Migration | – | 24.0% |
| CyberBench | – | 28.6% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 60.1% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 50.6% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 10.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 47.6% |
| MedCode | – | 40.7% |
| MedScribe | – | 85.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | – | 88.0% |
| MortgageTax | – | 64.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | – | 23.9% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.0% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 67.1% |
| SAGE | – | 51.3% |
| SkillsBench | – | 42.0% |
| Tax Agent Bench | – | 66.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 34.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 1.4% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | – | 65.4% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | – | 12.8% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 64.7% |
| LMArena Maths | 1502 | 1497 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | 1470 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1472 | 1474 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1472 | 1492 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1481 | 1492 |
| BTF-3 | 14.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 32.8% | 38.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | 84.3% | 88.8% |
| AutomationBench | 60.4% | 56.2% |
| GDP.pdf | 15.4% | 22.8% |
| MLCR | 51.1% | 20.0% |
| Harvey LAB | 0.8% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | 33.2% | 47.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 27.5% | 31.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 72.4% | 71.2% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1454 | 1617 |
| AA Openness Index | 44.4 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max: questions
- Is GLM 5.3 Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max?
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 62.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3.8 Max (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is GLM 5.3 Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max for coding?
- Qwen3.8 Max scores higher in coding (65 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is GLM 5.3 Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max for agentic tasks?
- GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher in agentic tasks (63 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?
- GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper: $0.238 against $3.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM 5.3 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?
- GLM 5.3 Flash streams faster: 53 against 37 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.