Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 vs o3 Pro

GLM 5.3 leads o3 Pro on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 44.8 to 21.9, and GLM 5.3 costs 18.2x less per output token ($4.40 vs $80.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
70.6
Overall
67.9
Output $/M
$4.40
6
o3 ProOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$80.00
0
vs boards won of 6 shared

GLM 5.3 or o3 Pro: which to pick

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; o3 Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
6
GLM 5.3 only
94
o3 Pro only
6
Like-for-like categories
4 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, o3 Pro not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 17.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: GLM 5.3 44.8 against o3 Pro 21.9, 22.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 $4.40 against o3 Pro $80.00 per million output tokens, 18.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 takes 1.05M tokens, o3 Pro 200K.

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 5.3Barso3 ProTies
Coding10
Intelligence20
Reasoning10
General20
All shared boards60
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured84.9%Only o3 Pro 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
SciCode59.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierCode40.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierSWE30.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
WeirdML75.4%58.2%GLM 5.3
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
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
AA Intelligence Index44.821.9GLM 5.3
Epoch Capabilities Index156.0147.3GLM 5.3
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
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
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 25 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
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%84.5%GLM 5.3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ARC-AGINot measured59.3%Only o3 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured4.9%Only o3 Pro 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
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured72.1%Only o3 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
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 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
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: 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 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
Design Arena: websites1295Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: UI components1314Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: game dev1311Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: data viz1260Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: 3D1332Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1304Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
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 index20
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
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
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
DTBench87.7%86.9%GLM 5.3
LMCA55.5%38.5%GLM 5.3
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured97.2%Only o3 Pro measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured84.4%Only o3 Pro measured
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 20 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 o3 Pro
BenchmarkGLM 5.3o3 ProLeader
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
o3 Pro$0.060Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.083Fits in one request
o3 Pro$1.24Fits in one request

GLM 5.3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.324Fits in one request
o3 Pro$4.80Exceeds 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 o3 Pro
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3OpenAI o3 Pro
MakerZ.aiOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 18, 2026June 10, 2025
Context window1.05M200K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$20.00
Output $/Mtok$4.40$80.00
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 o3 Pro for coding?

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; o3 Pro 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 o3 Pro?

GLM 5.3 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; o3 Pro costs $20.00 and $80.00. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or o3 Pro?

GLM 5.3, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs o3 Pro comparison based on?

6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 6 independent benchmarks and o3 Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next