Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 FlashX vs GPT-5.2-Codex

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 5.3 FlashXZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.25
GPT-5.2-CodexOpenAI
Coding
45.4
Overall
28.5
Output $/M
$14.00
vs $1.25 vs $14.00 per 1M output tokens. GLM 5.3 FlashX is 11.2x cheaper.

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 5.3 FlashX has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

GLM 5.3 FlashX has the edge where output tokens cost 11.2x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 400K tokens.

Shared results
0
GLM 5.3 FlashX only
0
GPT-5.2-Codex only
22
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 5.3 FlashX not benchmarked, GPT-5.2-Codex 45.4 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
GLM 5.3 FlashX $1.25 against GPT-5.2-Codex $14.00 per million output tokens, 11.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 FlashX takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.2-Codex 400K.

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 Index11 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.3%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1339Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured88.0%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured72.4%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured37.1%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured66.5%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1299.9Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1329Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1348Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured28.5Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1051Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured993Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1089Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1176Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured92.1%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured89.9%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured35.7%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
Neither model has a result on 17 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
IFBenchNot measured77.6%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured82.3%Only GPT-5.2-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.3 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
BenchmarkGLM 5.3 FlashXGPT-5.2-CodexLeader
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 FlashX$0.0010Fits in one request
GPT-5.2-Codex$0.0088Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 FlashX costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3 FlashX$0.022Fits in one request
GPT-5.2-Codex$0.130Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 FlashX costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3 FlashX$0.086Fits in one request
GPT-5.2-Codex$0.490Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 FlashX 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 FlashX and GPT-5.2-Codex
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3 FlashXOpenAI GPT-5.2-Codex
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 18, 2026January 14, 2026
Context window1.05M400K
Input $/Mtok$0.37$1.75
Output $/Mtok$1.25$14.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked45.4
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.43
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 FlashX better than GPT-5.2-Codex for coding?

Only GPT-5.2-Codex has a coding score, 45.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; GLM 5.3 FlashX has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GLM 5.3 FlashX has the edge where output tokens cost 11.2x less, and where the context window is larger, 1.05M against 400K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 FlashX or GPT-5.2-Codex?

GLM 5.3 FlashX costs $0.37 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2-Codex costs $1.75 and $14.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 FlashX or GPT-5.2-Codex?

GLM 5.3 FlashX, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 FlashX vs GPT-5.2-Codex comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.3 FlashX's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.2-Codex's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next