The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 50.2 to 36.3. GLM-5.3-Flash is 3.9x cheaper per token.

Zhipu AI · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.2 to 36.3, ranking #18 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, GLM-5.3-Flash wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 3.9x 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 50.2 and ranks #18 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 3.9x 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

Choose Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.50/M input and $2.20/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GLM-5.3-Flash
Zhipu AI
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.2
#18
36.3
#79
Reasoning
49.0
#17
35.4
#82
Coding
34.7
#32
21.0
#92
Agents
37.1
#15
12.5
#101
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 2
0 of 2
Input price
$0.15 / M
$0.50 / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
$2.20 / 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 Ultra (550B A55B)
Tool use
31.8#7
2.8#166
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

15 reported for GLM-5.3-Flash · 26 for Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)

2 shared

GLM-5.3-Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) is better at 0 benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Sep 17 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, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens) is 3.3x cheaper than Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) ($0.50/1M tokens).

For output processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens) is 4.4x cheaper than Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) ($2.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerDeepinfra
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)
Input tokens$0.50
Output tokens$2.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

230.0B diff

Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) has 230.0B more parameters than GLM-5.3-Flash, making it 71.9% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
320.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)
550.0Bparameters
320.0B
GLM-5.3-Flash
550.0B
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)'s 262,144 tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) is limited to 262,144 tokens.

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output1,048,576 tokens
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

GLM-5.3-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) 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 Ultra (550B A55B)

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GLM-5.3-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) uses OpenMDW License v1.1.

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 Ultra (550B A55B)

OpenMDW License v1.1

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26, while Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) was released on 2026-06-04.

GLM-5.3-Flash is 3 months newer than Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B).

GLM-5.3-Flash

Aug 26, 2026

3 weeks ago

2mo newer
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)

Jun 4, 2026

3 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-09-30, while GLM-5.3-Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)'s training data extends to 2025-09-30, but cannot make a direct comparison without GLM-5.3-Flash's cutoff date.

GLM-5.3-Flash

—

Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)

Sep 2025

Provider Availability

GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI, Novita, ZAI. Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) 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 Ultra (550B A55B)

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.20/1M
* 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 Ultra (550B A55B) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-5.3-Flash
✓ Preferred
Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B).

Which is better, GLM-5.3-Flash or Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 50.2 to 36.3. GLM-5.3-Flash is made by Zhipu AI and Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) 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 Ultra (550B A55B) 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 Ultra (550B A55B) scores RULER: 94.7%, IMO-AnswerBench: 92.3%, PinchBench: 90.0%, LiveCodeBench v6: 89.0%, GPQA: 87.0%.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash cheaper than Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash is 3.3x cheaper for input tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.50/M output via deepinfra. Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) costs $0.50/M input and $2.20/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for GLM-5.3-Flash and Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) 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 Ultra (550B A55B)?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.2 vs 36.3), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.15 vs $0.50/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs OpenMDW License v1.1). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GLM-5.3-Flash and Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B)?

GLM-5.3-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI and Nemotron 3 Ultra (550B A55B) is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons