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 1,524), 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. 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
Workhorse Anthropic model: most of Opus coding quality at a mid-tier price.
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 Sonnet 4.5 vs GLM-5.3. Alternative family tiers available.
Δ 34 Arena Elo pts
90 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 Sonnet 4.5 | GLM-5.3 | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +34 | ||
| Coding Elo | +55 | ||
| LiveBench | +3.4% | ||
| SWE-bench | +6.3% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +3% | ||
| Time to first token | +15 ms | ||
| Output speed | 88 tok/s | 90 tok/s | +2 tok/s |
| Input price | +$2.5/1M | ||
| Output price | +$13.2/1M | ||
| Context window | — |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
GLM-5.3 is estimated to save $285.50/month ($3,426/year).
Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).
Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).
Lower TTFT (240 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 Sonnet 4.5 | Lower TTFT (240 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Larger window (200k). |
| Screenshots / vision | GLM-5.3 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GLM-5.3). |
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.
Most of Opus 4.5 coding at a mid-tier price. Sonnet 5 replaced it as the buy; 4.5 remains a compare baseline.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/claude-sonnet-4-5-vs-glm-5-3/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry