LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5V Turbo

Updated October 21, 2026. 45 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
73.1
Overall
44.8
Output $/M
$1.40
45
GLM 5V TurboZ.ai
Coding
28.8
Overall
23.5
Output $/M
$4.00
0
vs boards won of 45 shared

Decision reading

Pick GLM 5.3 for coding: it scores 73.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.8 for GLM 5V Turbo.

GLM 5V Turbo is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Shared results
45
GLM 5.3 only
55
GLM 5V Turbo only
20
Like-for-like categories
8 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 73.1 from 2 benchmarks, GLM 5V Turbo 28.8 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Coding, 23.5 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: HTML: GLM 5.3 1595 against GLM 5V Turbo 1356, 39.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 $1.40 against GLM 5V Turbo $4.00 per million output tokens, 2.9x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 takes 1.05M tokens, GLM 5V Turbo 203K.

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 5.3BarsGLM 5V TurboTies
Coding50
Intelligence10
Agentic work30
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
Web design80
General170
All shared boards450
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index50
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
LiveBench coding82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev16211402GLM 5.3
AA Coding Index74.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)38.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)78.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)44.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)1.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
IOI (Vals AI)68.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)71.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)20.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)47.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)72.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SciCode59.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured32.6%Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
FrontierCode40.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierSWE30.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
WeirdML75.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ALE-Bench1317.4Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: coding14971466GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: software and IT14931460GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: React16411386GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: HTML15951356GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1425Only GLM 5V Turbo 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 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
AA Intelligence Index44.823.5GLM 5.3
Epoch Capabilities Index156.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
AA Agentic Index53.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1124Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1149Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps11941134GLM 5.3
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1267Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured957Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1102Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Design Arena: HTML slides11891120GLM 5.3
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides12551152GLM 5.3
LiveBench research73.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench browser0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench long agentic35.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)9.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)55.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)39.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)49.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)14.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)56.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured98.5%Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
APEX-Agents56.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
GPQA Diamond88.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench reasoning85.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)23.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)91.7%80.9%GLM 5.3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.3%17.1%GLM 5.3
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Chess puzzles37.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Mystery game puzzles33.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14901443GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: expert15141453GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14961456GLM 5.3
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1286Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1273Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
OTIS Mock AIME91.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 368.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ProofBench49.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: math14951442GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: mathematical work14971447GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
MMLU Pro86.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)42.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SimpleQA Verified41.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: science14981448GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14811433GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: legal and government14731436GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: business and finance14591435GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
Design Arena: websites12951230GLM 5.3
Design Arena: UI components13141213GLM 5.3
Design Arena: game dev13111219GLM 5.3
Design Arena: data viz12601202GLM 5.3
Design Arena: 3D13321209GLM 5.3
Design Arena: all code categories13041228GLM 5.3
Design Arena: SVG12921151GLM 5.3
Design Arena: ASCII art12131118GLM 5.3
LiveBench design77.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index170
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
Vals Index59.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench data analysis70.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)68.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)88.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
IFBenchNot measured61.1%Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.7%70.3%GLM 5.3
DTBench87.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMCA55.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text14741437GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: instruction following14791423GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: creative writing14581417GLM 5.3
LMArena VisionNot measured1264Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Text: English14821454GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: non-English14591420GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Chinese15321491GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: German14881422GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Japanese1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Korean14601397GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: French15031443GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Spanish14621452GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Russian14691432GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Polish14661432GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: multi-turn14721431GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: longer queries14831438GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: writing and language14691420GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14471407GLM 5.3
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1274Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1329Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1270Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1268Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1264Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1241Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1252Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1416Only GLM 5V Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GLM 5V Turbo
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GLM 5V TurboLeader
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$0.0008Fits in one request
GLM 5V Turbo$0.0032Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.0081Fits in one request
GLM 5V Turbo$0.072Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.030Fits in one request
GLM 5V Turbo$0.280Exceeds the context window

GLM 5.3 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 and GLM 5V Turbo
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3Z.ai GLM 5V Turbo
MakerZ.aiZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 18, 2026April 1, 2026
Context window1.05M203K
Input $/Mtok$0.079$1.20
Output $/Mtok$1.40$4.00
Coding index73.128.8
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$0.36Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 better than GLM 5V Turbo for coding?

Pick GLM 5.3 for coding: it scores 73.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 28.8 for GLM 5V Turbo. GLM 5V Turbo is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or GLM 5V Turbo?

GLM 5.3 costs $0.079 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; GLM 5V Turbo costs $1.20 and $4.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or GLM 5V Turbo?

GLM 5.3, with 1.05M tokens against 203K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5V Turbo comparison based on?

45 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and GLM 5V Turbo's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next