Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic |  GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #26 of 4660.1 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 40.0–73.4 | #29 of 4654.6 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.4–69.8 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #29 of 44$0.194 per LiveBench case | #2 of 44$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #30 of 3847.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 37.4–54.0 | #1 of 3877.3 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 68.2–84.9 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader | 5.97100% of row best · score · Claude Sonnet 5 (High); 95% CI [4.35064977, 7.58850066]; sessions 30631; observations 3176952; rank 9 | 1.1595% of row best · score · GLM 5.3 Flash; 95% CI [0.48275443, 1.81278415]; sessions 43164; observations 4433017; rank 25 |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,442.1598% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-5-high; 95% CI [1437.57467941, 1446.71829948]; votes 35301; rank 62 | 1,471.89100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1465.37026588, 1478.41920488]; votes 10038; rank 24 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,277.1698% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-5-high; 95% CI [1269.57643110, 1284.74576666]; votes 10289; rank 32 | 1,298.71100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1287.06707337, 1310.34654848]; votes 3110; rank 17 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 80.01100% of row best · percent · claude-sonnet-5-xhigh-effort · 19,428 output tokens / case | 73.2792% of row best · percent · glm-5.3-flash · 34,707 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 86.5198% of row best · points · Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) · 71,003 output tokens / case | 88.19100% of row best · points · GLM-5.3 Flash · 25,960 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 2 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Sonnet 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Family | Claude 5 | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Claude Sonnet 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Claude Sonnet 5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-06-30 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | Unknown | MIT |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Claude Sonnet 5 Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | vs | Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Sonnet 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Claude Sonnet 5 is $2.00 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Sonnet 5 is $10.00 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.25 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Claude Sonnet 5 is 1,000K and GLM 5.3 Flash is 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.
Can Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.3 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Sonnet 5 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Claude Sonnet 5 is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Sonnet 5 supports 128K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 131K output tokens.
Do Claude Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Sonnet 5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Claude Sonnet 5 has 3 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Sonnet 5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.