Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, GLM-5.3 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,558 vs 1,438), while GLM-5.3 leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (76.4%), while GLM-5.3 is more budget-friendly at $1.8/1M per 1M output tokens, while Claude Haiku 4.5 provides faster response streaming (175 tok/s). Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
9 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Anthropic cheap/fast Claude SKU. Official Claude Platform list price $1/$5 per 1M tokens (Anthropic Haiku page).
Z.ai Aug 14 2026 post-train of the GLM-5.2 744B base. Coding-plan live; open weights promised after a two-week safety review (z.ai/blog/glm-5.3).
Currently comparing Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-5.3. Alternative family tiers available.
Δ 120 Arena Elo pts
175 tok/s
$1.8 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | GLM-5.3 | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +120 | ||
| Coding Elo | +140 | ||
| LiveBench | +8.4% | ||
| SWE-bench | +18.2% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +9.2% | ||
| Time to first token | +160 ms | ||
| Output speed | 175 tok/s | 90 tok/s | +85 tok/s |
| Input price | +$0.5/1M | ||
| Output price | +$3.2/1M | ||
| Context window | — |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
GLM-5.3 is estimated to save $65.50/month ($786/year).
Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).
Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).
Lower TTFT (95 ms).
Larger window (200k).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.3).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | GLM-5.3 | Higher SWE-bench (76.4%). |
| High-volume chat | GLM-5.3 | Lower output list price ($1.8/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Lower TTFT (95 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Larger window (200k). |
| Screenshots / vision | GLM-5.3 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.3). |
$1/$5 hosted Claude vs a cheap long-context open sibling. The alternative-to-Sonnet pair that is honest.
Coding-plan live; open weights promised after a two-week safety review. Newest Zhipu row.
Strong Chinese/English coding. 5.3 is the new row; 5.2 stays so the delta is visible.
Huge window, cheap hosted lists. The Haiku alternative that is actually open-weight.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/claude-haiku-4-5-vs-glm-5-3/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry
compare · Aug 16, 2026
Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout: cheap Claude versus cheap open Llama
launch · Aug 14, 2026
GLM-5.3 (Aug 14): Z.ai post-train of the 5.2 744B base
launch · Jun 18, 2026
GLM-5.2 remains the prior Zhipu flagship for upgrade pairs
launch · Apr 8, 2026
Llama 4 Scout: long-context open sibling of Maverick
