Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5 vs Moondream 3 Preview

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
12.8
Output $/M
$2.20
M Moondream 3 PreviewMoondream
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
vs $2.20 vs $2.50 per 1M output tokens. GLM 4.5 is 1.1x cheaper.

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

GLM 4.5 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.1x less, and where the context window is larger, 131K against 32K tokens.

Shared results
0
GLM 4.5 only
60
Moondream 3 Preview only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 4.5 not benchmarked, Moondream 3 Preview not benchmarked.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
GLM 4.5 $2.20 against Moondream 3 Preview $2.50 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5 takes 131K tokens, Moondream 3 Preview 32K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index8 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
SWE-bench Verified64.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)67.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)73.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
WeirdML40.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-Bench344.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1434Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1440Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.8Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom43.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
GPQA Diamond72.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: expert1433Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1429Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
AIME86.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)94.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AA Math Index73.7Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: math1427Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1430Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
MMLU Pro81.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)75.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)90.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)83.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: science1444Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1455Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1438Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1420Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
Design Arena: websites1170Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: UI components1144Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: game dev1145Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: data viz1159Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: 3D1170Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1165Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: SVG1096Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
IFBench44.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)73.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text1430Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1404Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1395Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: English1437Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1417Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1465Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: German1407Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1380Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: French1418Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1454Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1413Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1422Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1415Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1412Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1403Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1404Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
BenchmarkGLM 4.5Moondream 3 PreviewLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.0017Fits in one request
Moondream 3 Preview$0.0015Fits in one request

Moondream 3 Preview costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request
Moondream 3 Preview$0.022Exceeds the context window

Moondream 3 Preview costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window
Moondream 3 Preview$0.085Exceeds the context window

Moondream 3 Preview costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 4.5 and Moondream 3 Preview
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5Moondream 3 Preview
MakerZ.aiMoondream
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 25, 2025October 15, 2026
Context window131K32K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.30
Output $/Mtok$2.20$2.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5 better than Moondream 3 Preview for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GLM 4.5 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.1x less, and where the context window is larger, 131K against 32K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5 or Moondream 3 Preview?

GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Moondream 3 Preview costs $0.30 and $2.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.5 or Moondream 3 Preview?

GLM 4.5, with 131K tokens against 32K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5 vs Moondream 3 Preview comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.5's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Moondream 3 Preview's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next