GLM 5.3 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Updated October 21, 2026. 96 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick GLM 5.3 for coding: it scores 73.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 69.0 for GPT-5.6 Terra.
Pick GPT-5.6 Terra when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 1.05M tokens, or when what matters is LiveBench coding or AA Coding Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 96
- GLM 5.3 only
- 4
- GPT-5.6 Terra only
- 28
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 scores 73.1 against 69.0.
2 benchmarks behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 leads, 44.8 against 42.1.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 leads, 53.1 against 43.2.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra leads, 90.9% against 88.1%.
Same board, both measured
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 leads, 86.8% against 86.7%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 leads, 1295 against 1269.
Same board, both measured
General
Vals Index
No call
Only GLM 5.3 has a Vals Index result, 59.7%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra takes 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 $0.0008, GPT-5.6 Terra $0.0080 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
GLM 5.3
GLM 5.3 $0.36, GPT-5.6 Terra $0.42.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 5.3 73.1 from 2 benchmarks, GPT-5.6 Terra 69.0 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Math, 16.7 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LiveBench browser: GLM 5.3 0.0% against GPT-5.6 Terra 84.0%, 84.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 5.3 $1.40 against GPT-5.6 Terra $12.00 per million output tokens, 8.6x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 5.3 takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.6 Terra 1.05M.
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.
| Category | GLM 5.3 | Bars | GPT-5.6 Terra | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 10 | 10 | 2 ties | |
| Intelligence | 1 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 9 | 6 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 7 | ||
| Math | 2 | 4 | ||
| Knowledge | 5 | 4 | ||
| Web design | 9 | 0 | ||
| General | 20 | 3 | ||
| All shared boards | 59 | 35 | 2 ties |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1010
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 82.8% | 86.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LMArena WebDev | 1621 | 1522 | GLM 5.3 |
| AA Coding Index | 74.8 | 76.7 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 80.5% | 85.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 95.4% | 95.4% | Tie |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 38.9% | 22.7% | GLM 5.3 |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 78.1% | 74.6% | GLM 5.3 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 44.2% | 47.8% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 1.5% | 0.5% | GLM 5.3 |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 68.4% | 87.6% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 71.5% | 77.5% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI) | 20.0% | 14.8% | GLM 5.3 |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 47.5% | 58.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 72.1% | 72.1% | Tie |
| SciCode | 59.0% | 55.0% | GLM 5.3 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 62.9% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| FrontierCode | 40.1% | 41.3% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| FrontierSWE | 30.2% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.3 measured |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | 78.3% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| ALE-Bench | 1317.4 | 1951.4 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1497 | 1485 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1493 | 1482 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1641 | 1513 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1595 | 1526 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1541 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 44.8 | 42.1 | GLM 5.3 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.0 | 160.1 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index96
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 53.1 | 43.2 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1120 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | Not measured | 1061 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1194 | 1112 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | Not measured | 1066 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | Not measured | 1082 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1189 | 1108 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1255 | 1130 | GLM 5.3 |
| LiveBench research | 73.2% | 60.4% | GLM 5.3 |
| LiveBench browser | 0.0% | 84.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LiveBench long agentic | 35.9% | 48.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 9.2% | 9.5% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 55.8% | 54.4% | GLM 5.3 |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 39.7% | 30.0% | GLM 5.3 |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 49.0% | 41.4% | GLM 5.3 |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 14.6% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.3 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 56.3% | 66.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 5.7% | 10.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 86.3% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| APEX-Agents | 56.6% | 58.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| BALROG | Not measured | 53.2% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $8,164 | $7,343 | GLM 5.3 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index37
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 88.1% | 90.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LiveBench reasoning | 85.8% | 90.6% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 23.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.3 measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 86.5% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 91.7% | 92.5% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.3% | 42.9% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 90.9% | 93.3% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 96.5% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 83.9% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 48.9% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Chess puzzles | 37.0% | 47.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Mystery game puzzles | 33.0% | 35.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1490 | 1469 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1514 | 1496 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1496 | 1465 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1295 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1312 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 91.1% | 99.7% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 68.8% | 86.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 29.3% | 70.7% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| ProofBench | 49.0% | 74.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LMArena Text: math | 1495 | 1465 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1497 | 1478 | GLM 5.3 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index54
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.8% | 86.7% | GLM 5.3 |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.8% | 85.1% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.3% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 72.4% | 76.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.3% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 42.9% | 43.4% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.0% | 43.2% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LMArena Text: science | 1498 | 1452 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1481 | 1430 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1473 | 1461 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1459 | 1448 | GLM 5.3 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index90
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1295 | 1269 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1314 | 1259 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1311 | 1230 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1260 | 1240 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1332 | 1135 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1304 | 1241 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1292 | 1220 | GLM 5.3 |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1213 | 1177 | GLM 5.3 |
| LiveBench design | 77.3% | 76.0% | GLM 5.3 |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index203
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 59.7% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.3 measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | 70.2% | 79.3% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 68.5% | 62.4% | GLM 5.3 |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 47.0% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 88.8% | 82.9% | GLM 5.3 |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Not measured | 65.1% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 71.2% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 79.7% | 83.0% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| DTBench | 87.7% | 93.3% | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| LMCA | 55.5% | 54.9% | GLM 5.3 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 83.8% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Furniture assembly | Not measured | 54.2% | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Text | 1474 | 1448 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1479 | 1456 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1458 | 1413 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1271 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1482 | 1449 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1459 | 1441 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1532 | 1514 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1488 | 1460 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1460 | 1454 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1460 | 1427 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1503 | 1466 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1462 | 1451 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1469 | 1452 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1466 | 1446 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1472 | 1453 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1483 | 1454 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1469 | 1431 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1447 | 1418 | GLM 5.3 |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1272 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1337 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1278 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1236 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1248 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| LMArena Document | Not measured | 1472 | Only GPT-5.6 Terra measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5.3 | GPT-5.6 Terra | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GLM 5.3 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 5.3 | OpenAI GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | OpenAI |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | August 18, 2026 | July 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.079 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.40 | $12.00 |
| Coding index | 73.1 | 69.0 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.36 | $0.42 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 5.3 better than GPT-5.6 Terra for coding?
Pick GLM 5.3 for coding: it scores 73.1 on the Vibe Coding Index against 69.0 for GPT-5.6 Terra. Pick GPT-5.6 Terra when the context window is larger, 1.05M against 1.05M tokens, or when what matters is LiveBench coding or AA Coding Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GLM 5.3 costs $0.079 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Terra costs $2.00 and $12.00. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.3 costs $0.36 and GPT-5.6 Terra $0.42.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra, with 1.05M tokens against 1.05M.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs GPT-5.6 Terra comparison based on?
96 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.6 Terra's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.