The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are closely matched at 50.2 and 49.1 on the LLM Stats Score.

Zhipu AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 50.2 and 49.1.

In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, GLM-5.3-Flash wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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

Choose GLM-5.3-Flash

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 6 exact shared results

Choose Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

  • you are already invested in the Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
50.2
#18
49.1
#20
49.0
#17
48.9
#19
34.7
#32
36.1
#23
37.1
#15
35.1
#20
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 6
2 of 6
Input price
$0.15 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
GLM-5.3-Flash
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
31.7#24
34.1#14
31.8#7
31.1#11
31.4#26
36.1#9
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

15 reported for GLM-5.3-Flash · 22 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

6 shared

GLM-5.3-Flash outperforms in 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, Humanity's Last Exam, NL2Repo, Toolathlon), while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is better at 2 benchmarks (Agents' Last Exam, CharXiv-R).

GLM-5.3-Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

195.0B diff

GLM-5.3-Flash has 195.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, making it 156.0% larger.

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
320.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
125.0Bparameters
320.0B
GLM-5.3-Flash
125.0B
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only GLM-5.3-Flash specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only GLM-5.3-Flash specifies output context (1,048,576 tokens).

Zhipu AI
GLM-5.3-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output1,048,576 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next support multimodal inputs.

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

GLM-5.3-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

GLM-5.3-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next uses Qwen Community License 1.0.

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

GLM-5.3-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen Community License 1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Both models were released on 2026-08-26.

They likely represent similar generations of model development.

GLM-5.3-Flash

Aug 26, 2026

3 weeks ago

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Aug 26, 2026

3 weeks ago

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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GLM-5.3-Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.

Which is better, GLM-5.3-Flash or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 50.2 and 49.1. GLM-5.3-Flash is made by Zhipu AI and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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%. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

What are the context window sizes for GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

GLM-5.3-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next supports an unknown number of 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.2 vs 49.1), licensing (MIT vs Qwen Community License 1.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

GLM-5.3-Flash is developed by Zhipu AI and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.