Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 vs GPT-4o

GLM 5.3 costs 2.3x less per output token than GPT-4o ($4.40 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
70.6
Overall
67.9
Output $/M
$4.40
11
GPT-4oOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
0
vs boards won of 11 shared

GLM 5.3 or GPT-4o: which to pick

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
11
GLM 5.3 only
89
GPT-4o only
16
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 70.6 from 6 benchmarks, GPT-4o not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 54.4 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: 3D: GLM 5.3 1332 against GPT-4o 868, 58.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 $4.40 against GPT-4o $10.00 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-4o 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 5.3BarsGPT-4oTies
Reasoning20
Web design60
General30
All shared boards110
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured38.8%Only GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench LiteNot measured38.0%Only GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench (full test set)Not measured18.8%Only GPT-4o measured
SWE-bench MultimodalNot measured30.4%Only GPT-4o measured
LiveBench coding82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev1621Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
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
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured30.9%Only GPT-4o measured
SciCode59.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured8.3%Only GPT-4o 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: coding1497Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1493Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1641Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1595Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SciCodeNot measured1.5%Only GPT-4o measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
AA Intelligence Index44.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index156.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
AA Agentic Index53.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1194Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1189Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1230Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
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 measured25.1%Only GPT-4o measured
APEX-Agents56.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GDPvalNot measured9.9%Only GPT-4o measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
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%54.3%GLM 5.3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.3%2.4%GLM 5.3
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ARC-AGINot measured4.5%Only GPT-4o measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured0.0%Only GPT-4o measured
Chess puzzles37.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Mystery game puzzles33.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1490Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: expert1514Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1496Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured6.0Only GPT-4o measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured6.0%Only GPT-4o measured
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: math1495Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1497Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
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
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured74.8%Only GPT-4o measured
SimpleQA Verified41.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MMLUNot measured88.1%Only GPT-4o measured
LMArena Text: science1498Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1481Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1473Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1459Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
Design Arena: websites1295831GLM 5.3
Design Arena: UI components1314882GLM 5.3
Design Arena: game dev1311906GLM 5.3
Design Arena: data viz1260858GLM 5.3
Design Arena: 3D1332868GLM 5.3
Design Arena: all code categories1304860GLM 5.3
Design Arena: SVG1294Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1208Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench design77.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
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 measured34.3%Only GPT-4o measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.7%49.3%GLM 5.3
DTBench87.7%64.5%GLM 5.3
LMCA55.5%16.6%GLM 5.3
LMArena Text1474Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1479Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1458Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: English1482Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1459Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1532Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: German1488Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: French1503Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1462Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1469Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1466Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1472Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1483Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1469Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1447Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 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 GPT-4o
BenchmarkGLM 5.3GPT-4oLeader
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$0.0036Fits in one request
GPT-4o$0.0075Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.083Fits in one request
GPT-4o$0.155Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.324Fits in one request
GPT-4o$0.600Exceeds 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 GPT-4o
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3OpenAI GPT-4o
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 18, 2026May 13, 2024
Context window1.05M128K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$2.50
Output $/Mtok$4.40$10.00
Coding index70.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it60
Cost per solved task$0.36Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 better than GPT-4o for coding?

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or GPT-4o?

GLM 5.3 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4o costs $2.50 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or GPT-4o?

GLM 5.3, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs GPT-4o comparison based on?

11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 6 independent benchmarks and GPT-4o's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next