GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3 7
GLM 5.3 
Qwen3 7 Verdict
- GLM 5.3 (max) and Qwen3 7 (max) are level on quality (60.0 vs 60.1).
- GLM 5.3 (max) is stronger in coding, human preference, maths, reasoning.
- Qwen3 7 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge, composite, instruction following, long context.
- GLM 5.3 (max) is 1.7× cheaper ($2.15 vs $3.75 per 1M blended).
- Qwen3 7 (max) streams 2.5× faster (166 vs 66 tokens per second).
| Metric | GLM 5.3 (max) | Qwen3 7 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 60.0 | 60.1 |
| Agents & tools score | 52.8 | 54.1 |
| Coding score | 64.3 | 60.9 |
| Human preference score | 68.9 | 57.1 |
| Knowledge score | 55.8 | 62.9 |
| Maths score | 60.0 | 57.4 |
| Reasoning score | 66.9 | 66.8 |
| Composite score | – | 53.5 |
| Instruction following score | – | 74.6 |
| Long context score | – | 63.5 |
| Blended price $/M | $2.15 | $3.75 |
| Output speed | 66 tok/s | 166 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 33.5 s | 17.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | 90.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 68.8% | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 91.1% | 95.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 77.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.0% | 55.8% |
| Terminal-Bench | 41.8% | – |
| SimpleBench | – | 70.4% |
| SciCode | 56.5% | 48.8% |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | – |
| ProofBench | 49.0% | 26.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 153.7 |
| LMArena Text | 1486 | 1474 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1509 | 1495 |
| LMArena Coding | 1526 | 1525 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1614 | 1517 |
| LMArena Agent | 2.6 | -3.1 |
| LiveBench | – | 73.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 83.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 43.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 85.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 71.8% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 79.7% |
| AA Intelligence Index | – | 29.9 |
| IFBench | – | 80.5% |
| AA-LCR | – | 79.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 13.5 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 50.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 40.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 49.5% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 94.7% |
| LiveCodeBench | 80.5% | 87.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.8% | 89.3% |
| IOI | 68.4% | – |
| LegalBench | 84.8% | 84.9% |
| CorpFin | – | 63.7% |
| TaxEval | 72.4% | 75.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 71.5% | 61.0% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 95.4% | 68.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 88.1% | 90.2% |
| Vals Index | 57.0 | 44.8 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | – | 1110 |
Data as of 2026-09-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3 7: questions
- Is GLM 5.3 better than Qwen3 7?
- GLM 5.3 (max) and Qwen3 7 (max) are level on quality (60.0 vs 60.1). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3 7 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is GLM 5.3 better than Qwen3 7 for coding?
- GLM 5.3 scores higher in coding (64 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is GLM 5.3 better than Qwen3 7 for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3 7 scores higher in agentic tasks (54 vs 53 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or Qwen3 7?
- GLM 5.3 is cheaper: $2.15 against $3.75 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, GLM 5.3 or Qwen3 7?
- Qwen3 7 streams faster: 166 against 66 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.