Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

GLM 5.3 leads Qwen3.5-122B-A10B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 44.8 to 17.7, and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs 2.1x less per output token ($2.08 vs $4.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 40 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
70.6
Overall
67.9
Output $/M
$4.40
40
Qwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.08
0
vs boards won of 40 shared

GLM 5.3 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B: which to pick

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for output tokens 2.1x cheaper ($2.08 vs $4.40 per million).

Shared results
40
GLM 5.3 only
60
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
11
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 27.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: GLM 5.3 1641 against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 1353, 41.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 $4.40 against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B $2.08 per million output tokens, 2.1x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 262K.

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 5.3BarsQwen3.5-122B-A10BTies
Coding70
Intelligence10
Reasoning60
Math20
Knowledge40
General200
All shared boards400
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index70
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LiveBench coding82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev16211361GLM 5.3
AA Coding Index74.843.3GLM 5.3
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%39.7%GLM 5.3
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured31.1%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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: coding14971436GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: software and IT14931436GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: React16411353GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: HTML15951351GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Intelligence Index44.817.7GLM 5.3
Epoch Capabilities Index156.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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 measured93.6%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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%85.7%GLM 5.3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.3%25.2%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%17.0%GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: hard prompts14901421GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: expert15141431GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14961431GLM 5.3
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1261Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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: math14951431GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: mathematical work14971431GLM 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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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: science14981432GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14811423GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: legal and government14731422GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: business and finance14591414GLM 5.3
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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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 index200
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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 measured75.7%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.7%76.3%GLM 5.3
DTBench87.7%84.3%GLM 5.3
LMCA55.5%32.2%GLM 5.3
LMArena Text14741417GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: instruction following14791399GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: creative writing14581368GLM 5.3
LMArena VisionNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: English14821428GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: non-English14591401GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Chinese15321463GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: German14881425GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Japanese14601367GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Korean14601353GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: French15031443GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Spanish14621425GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Russian14691400GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Polish14661398GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: multi-turn14721416GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: longer queries14831410GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: writing and language14691387GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14471366GLM 5.3
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1251Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1243Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1220Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.0013Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.083Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.019Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.324Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.073Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
MakerZ.aiQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 18, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.26
Output $/Mtok$4.40$2.08
Coding index70.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it61
Cost per solved task$0.36Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 better than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for coding?

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for output tokens 2.1x cheaper ($2.08 vs $4.40 per million).

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

GLM 5.3 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs $0.26 and $2.08. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

GLM 5.3, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B comparison based on?

40 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 6 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next