Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind |  GLM 5.3 FlashZ.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #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 | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #2 of 44$0.0087 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #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 | $1.25Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 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 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,457.7799% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-pro; 95% CI [1455.30542635, 1460.23799206]; votes 122554; rank 36 | 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 | 1,262.1797% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-pro; 95% CI [1257.50456844, 1266.82595195]; votes 87635; rank 45 | 1,298.71100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1287.06707337, 1310.34654848]; votes 3110; rank 17 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 78.2789% of row best · points · Gemini 2.5 Pro · 4,521 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 | 0 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.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Z.ai |
| Family | Gemini 2 5 | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Gemini 2.5 Pro | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 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 | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (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 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro is $1.25 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 2.5 Pro 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, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 2.5 Pro supports 1,049K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.3 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Gemini 2.5 Pro is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro 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, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Gemini 2.5 Pro supports 66K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 131K output tokens.
Do Gemini 2.5 Pro and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 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, Gemini 2.5 Pro or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Pro has 2 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemini 2.5 Pro 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.