Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, GLM-5.3 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,558 vs 1,536), 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.
10 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Open-weight-adjacent DeepSeek flagship. High reasoning density per dollar.
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).
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Δ 22 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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | GLM-5.3 | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +22 | ||
| Coding Elo | +42 | ||
| LiveBench | +0.7% | ||
| SWE-bench | +4.8% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +0.8% | ||
| Time to first token | +155 ms | ||
| Output speed | 70 tok/s | 90 tok/s | +20 tok/s |
| Input price | $1.32/1M | +$0.82/1M | |
| Output price | $3.96/1M | +$2.16/1M | |
| Context window | +849k |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
GLM-5.3 is estimated to save $61.10/month ($733/year).
Higher SWE-bench (76.4%).
Lower output list price ($1.8/1M).
Lower TTFT (255 ms).
Larger window (1M).
GLM-5.3 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.
| 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 | GLM-5.3 | Lower TTFT (255 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Larger window (1M). |
| Screenshots / vision | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.3 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog. |
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.
Top DeepSeek vs top Anthropic Elo. Usually V4 Pro vs Opus 5. License and invoice decide as much as Elo.
2026-06 open-weight-adjacent flagship. The usual cheap-vs-Claude question starts here.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/deepseek-v4-pro-vs-glm-5-3/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry
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
compare · Jun 13, 2026
DeepSeek vs Claude: the cheap-versus-frontier question, remapped
launch · Jun 12, 2026
DeepSeek V4 Pro: high reasoning density per dollar
