The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash are closely matched at 49.3 and 51.6 on the LLM Stats Score. GLM-5.3-Flash is 16.8x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Zhipu AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 49.3 and 51.6.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, GLM-5.3-Flash wins 5; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 16.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

GLM-5.3-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Sonnet 5

  • you want predictable pricing at $2.00/M input and $10.00/M output

Choose GLM-5.3-Flash

  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 6 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 16.8x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
GLM-5.3-Flash
Zhipu AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.3
#15
51.6
#11
Reasoning
48.8
#16
50.3
#13
Coding
39.8
#14
37.8
#22
Agents
33.7
#19
39.1
#9
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 6
5 of 6
Input price
$2.00 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
$0.50 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5
GLM-5.3-Flash
Vision
34.4#12
32.0#21
Tool use
25.6#27
34.2#4
Multimodal
32.6#17
30.9#24
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Claude Sonnet 5 · 15 for GLM-5.3-Flash

6 shared

Claude Sonnet 5 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while GLM-5.3-Flash is better at 5 benchmarks (AutomationBench, CharXiv-R, DeepSWE 1.1, OfficeQA Pro, Toolathlon).

GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-5.3-Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Sonnet 5 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Sonnet 5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 20.0x more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 5 is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$10.00
Best providerAnthropic
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Sonnet 5's 1,000,000 tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 5 is limited to 64,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Sonnet 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

GLM-5.3-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Sonnet 5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while GLM-5.3-Flash uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Closed source

GLM-5.3-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5 was released on 2026-06-30, while GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

GLM-5.3-Flash is 2 months newer than Claude Sonnet 5.

Claude Sonnet 5

Jun 30, 2026

1 months ago

GLM-5.3-Flash

Aug 26, 2026

2 days ago

1mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Sonnet 5 is available from Anthropic. GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, Novita, ZAI.

Claude Sonnet 5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $10.00/1M

GLM-5.3-Flash

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
z logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Sonnet 5
✓ Preferred
GLM-5.3-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM-5.3-Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 49.3 and 51.6. Claude Sonnet 5 is made by Anthropic and GLM-5.3-Flash is made by Zhipu AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Sonnet 5 compare to GLM-5.3-Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores CharXiv-R: 88.3%, ChartMuseum: 86.7%, SWE-Bench Verified: 85.2%, BrowseComp: 84.7%, GDP.pdf: 81.6%. GLM-5.3-Flash scores CharXiv-R: 89.4%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, MMVU: 80.5%, Toolathlon: 78.4%, Chartography: 78.0%.

Is Claude Sonnet 5 cheaper than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is 13.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Sonnet 5 costs $2.00/M input and $10.00/M output via anthropic. GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.50/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5 supports 1.0M tokens and GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.3 vs 51.6), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($2.00 vs $0.15/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM-5.3-Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5 is developed by Anthropic and GLM-5.3-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI.

Related comparisons