Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Mercury 2

Updated October 21, 2026. 38 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai
Coding
71.0
Overall
41.8
Output $/M
$0.50
37
Mercury 2Inception
Coding
0.0
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.75
1
vs boards won of 38 shared

Decision reading

Pick GLM 5.3 Flash for coding: it scores 71.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 0.0 for Mercury 2.

Pick Mercury 2 when the benchmark that matters is ALE-Bench, where it leads.

Shared results
38
GLM 5.3 Flash only
64
Mercury 2 only
4
Like-for-like categories
7 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 5.3 Flash 71.0 from 2 benchmarks, Mercury 2 0.0 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Agentic work, 49.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: GLM 5.3 Flash 1624 against Mercury 2 1160, 73.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 Flash $0.50 against Mercury 2 $0.75 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 Flash takes 1.05M tokens, Mercury 2 128K.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5.3 FlashBarsMercury 2Ties
Coding71
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning50
Knowledge30
Web design80
General120
All shared boards371
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index71
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
LiveBench coding80.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena WebDev16071171GLM 5.3 Flash
AA Coding Index71.531.1GLM 5.3 Flash
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)92.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)37.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)30.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Code migration (Vals AI)20.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
IOI (Vals AI)52.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)62.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)16.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)40.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)67.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
SciCode51.6%37.7%GLM 5.3 Flash
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured26.5%Only Mercury 2 measured
FrontierCode31.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
FrontierSWE18.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
WeirdMLNot measured43.2%Only Mercury 2 measured
ALE-Bench303.6785.6Mercury 2
LMArena Text: coding15071390GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT15001385GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena WebDev: React16241160GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena WebDev: HTML15771199GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena WebDev: from an image1578Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
AA Intelligence Index41.810.8GLM 5.3 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index153.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
AA Agentic Index50.91.6GLM 5.3 Flash
LiveBench research70.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LiveBench browser84.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LiveBench long agentic28.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
SREBench (Vals AI)0.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)31.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)45.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)10.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)55.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)2.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured70.8%Only Mercury 2 measured
APEX-Agents52.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
GPQA Diamond86.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LiveBench reasoning77.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)86.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)91.2%77.0%GLM 5.3 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)39.9%17.1%GLM 5.3 Flash
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
ARC-AGI91.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
ARC-AGI-265.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Chess puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Mystery game puzzles8.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14901362GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: expert15111358GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14881374GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Vision: diagrams1317Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: homework1318Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
OTIS Mock AIME93.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 355.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
FrontierMath, tier 417.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
ProofBench21.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: math1503Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1497Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
MMLU Pro86.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)75.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: science14841343GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14751363GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and finance14601349GLM 5.3 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
Design Arena: websites12721036GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: UI components1316998GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: game dev1279985GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: data viz12621009GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: 3D1316982GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: all code categories12821022GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: SVG1284998GLM 5.3 Flash
Design Arena: ASCII art1269990GLM 5.3 Flash
LiveBench design77.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
Vals Index50.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LiveBench data analysis76.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)88.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
IFBenchNot measured69.8%Only Mercury 2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.0%43.7%GLM 5.3 Flash
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text14711354GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following14781328GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing14411286GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Vision1294Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: English14741378GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English14621330GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese15311414GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: German1462Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1444Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Korean1436Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: French1491Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1475Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: Russian14651304GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish1450Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14691357GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries14811329GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language14551300GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14401314GLM 5.3 Flash
LMArena Vision: English1295Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1363Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1299Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: humor1279Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1270Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashMercury 2Leader
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 5.3 Flash$0.0004Fits in one request
Mercury 2$0.0006Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3 Flash$0.0090Fits in one request
Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3 Flash$0.035Fits in one request
Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window

GLM 5.3 Flash 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 5.3 Flash and Mercury 2
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3 FlashInception Mercury 2
MakerZ.aiInception
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 26, 2026March 4, 2026
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.25
Output $/Mtok$0.50$0.75
Coding index71.00.0
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$0.02Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 Flash better than Mercury 2 for coding?

Pick GLM 5.3 Flash for coding: it scores 71.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 0.0 for Mercury 2. Pick Mercury 2 when the benchmark that matters is ALE-Bench, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 Flash or Mercury 2?

GLM 5.3 Flash costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 costs $0.25 and $0.75. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 Flash or Mercury 2?

GLM 5.3 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 Flash vs Mercury 2 comparison based on?

38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.3 Flash's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Mercury 2's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next