GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct
Comparing GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.
Zhipu AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct trade strengths across price, capabilities, and technical limits. The better choice depends on the workload.
On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 2.1x 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 benchmark, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose GLM-5.3-Flash
- cost matters — it's about 2.1x 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 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct
- you want predictable pricing at $0.15/M input and $1.50/M output
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Arena Performance
Playground indexes and blind preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens) costs the same as Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct ($1.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
GLM-5.3-Flash has 240.0B more parameters than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct, making it 300.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct's 65,536 tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct is limited to 65,536 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
GLM-5.3-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct 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
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
GLM-5.3-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct was released on 2025-09-10.
GLM-5.3-Flash is 12 months newer than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct.
Aug 26, 2026
0 days ago
11mo newerSep 10, 2025
11 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, Novita, ZAI. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct is available from Novita.
GLM-5.3-Flash
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct.