The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 50.7 to 26.9. Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is 1.2x cheaper per token.

Zhipu AI · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.7 to 26.9, ranking #16 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, GLM-5.3-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is roughly 1.2x 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 GLM-5.3-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.7 and ranks #16 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

Choose Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

  • cost matters — it's about 1.2x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GLM-5.3-Flash
Zhipu AI
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.7
#16
26.9
#137
Reasoning
49.5
#15
25.1
#143
Coding
34.6
#30
13.0
#134
Agents
37.0
#13
-1.9
#165
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.15 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
$0.50 / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
GLM-5.3-Flash
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)
Tool use
32.2#5
3.0#159
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

15 reported for GLM-5.3-Flash · 23 for Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

1 shared

GLM-5.3-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is better at 0 benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) costs less

For input processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens) is 1.5x more expensive than Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens) costs the same as Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) ($0.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, GLM-5.3-Flash is more expensive than Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B).*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerDeepinfra
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

200.0B diff

GLM-5.3-Flash has 200.0B more parameters than Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B), making it 166.7% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
320.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)
120.0Bparameters
320.0B
GLM-5.3-Flash
120.0B
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)'s 262,144 tokens. Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while GLM-5.3-Flash is limited to 131,072 tokens.

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

GLM-5.3-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) does not.

GLM-5.3-Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GLM-5.3-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GLM-5.3-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) uses NVIDIA Open Model License Agreement .

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

GLM-5.3-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

NVIDIA Open Model License Agreement

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26, while Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) was released on 2026-03-11.

GLM-5.3-Flash is 6 months newer than Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B).

GLM-5.3-Flash

Aug 26, 2026

1 weeks ago

5mo newer
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

Mar 11, 2026

5 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-06-01, while GLM-5.3-Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)'s training data extends to 2025-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without GLM-5.3-Flash's cutoff date.

GLM-5.3-Flash

—

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

Jun 2025

Provider Availability

GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI, Novita, ZAI. Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is available from DeepInfra.

GLM-5.3-Flash

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
friendli logo
FriendliAI
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

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput 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 GLM-5.3-Flash and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-5.3-Flash
✓ Preferred
Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B).

Which is better, GLM-5.3-Flash or Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 50.7 to 26.9. GLM-5.3-Flash is made by Zhipu AI and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does GLM-5.3-Flash compare to Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) in benchmarks?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores CharXiv-R: 89.4%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, MMVU: 80.5%, Toolathlon: 78.4%, Chartography: 78.0%. Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) scores HMMT 2025: 94.7%, RULER: 91.8%, AIME 2025: 90.2%, WMT24++: 86.7%, MMLU-Pro: 83.7%.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash cheaper than Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)?

Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is 1.5x cheaper for input tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.50/M output via deepinfra. Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) costs $0.10/M input and $0.50/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for GLM-5.3-Flash and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between GLM-5.3-Flash and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.7 vs 26.9), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.15 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs NVIDIA Open Model License Agreement ). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GLM-5.3-Flash and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI and Nemotron 3 Super (120B A12B) is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons