GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  GLM 5.1Z.ai | 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 | $1.05Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $3.50Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 203K | 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 | GLM-5.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,462.3899% of row best · rating · glm-5.1; 95% CI [1458.52340519, 1466.22702609]; votes 48901; rank 33 | 1,471.89100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-flash; 95% CI [1465.37026588, 1478.41920488]; votes 10038; rank 24 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 0 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 | GLM-5.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Z.ai | Z.ai |
| Family | Glm 5 1 | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | GLM-5.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | GLM-5.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 203K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 753.9B | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | mit | MIT |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (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 |
GLM 5.1 Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Grok 4.6xAI | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
GLM-5.1Z.ai | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | family variantstext |
 Hy4 previewTencent | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | GLM-5.1Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.1 is $1.05 and GLM 5.3 Flash is $0.075 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on this metric. GLM 5.1 is $3.50 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, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced context window. GLM 5.1 supports 203K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. GLM 5.1 is open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
GLM 5.1 is not 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, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. GLM 5.1 is — and GLM 5.3 Flash is 131K.
Do GLM 5.1 and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
GLM 5.1: reasoning and tool calling. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, GLM 5.1 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.1 has 4 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, a tie.
Which offers better value, GLM 5.1 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.