GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. GLM-5.3-Flash is 5.7x cheaper per token.
Zhipu AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
GLM-5.3-Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 0 benchmarks. GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 5.7x 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
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 2 of 2 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 5.7x 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- you want predictable pricing at $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
GLM-5.3-Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 0 benchmarks.
GLM-5.3-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
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) is 4.0x cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens).
For output processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens) is 7.2x cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B has 77.0B more parameters than GLM-5.3-Flash, making it 24.1% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B's 262,144 tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is limited to 64,000 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Both GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
GLM-5.3-Flash
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
License
Usage and distribution terms
GLM-5.3-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16.
GLM-5.3-Flash is 6 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.
Aug 26, 2026
0 days ago
6mo newerFeb 16, 2026
6 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. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita.
GLM-5.3-Flash
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.