Llama 3.1 405B vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Llama 3.1 405BMeta |  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 | Not reported | $0.075Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.25Z.ai ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Llama-3.1-405B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Z.ai |
| Family | Llama 3 1 405b | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Llama-3.1-405B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Llama-3.1-405B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 405.9B | 320B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 18B |
| License | llama3.1 | MIT |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | generation | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Llama 3.1 405B Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Llama-3.1-405BMeta | cross-developer peerstext |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Llama-3.1-405BMeta | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Llama-3.1-405BMeta | cross-developer peerstext |
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Llama-3.1-405BMeta | cross-developer peerstext |
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Llama-3.1-405BMeta | cross-developer peerstext |
Llama-3.1-405BMeta | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Llama 3.1 405B vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Llama 3.1 405B or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 3.1 405B and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 405B or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Only GLM 5.3 Flash has a directly sourced input price: $0.075 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.3 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $0.25 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Llama 3.1 405B or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Llama 3.1 405B supports 131K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 3.1 405B 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 Llama 3.1 405B or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Llama 3.1 405B is open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Llama 3.1 405B and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Llama 3.1 405B 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, Llama 3.1 405B or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 3.1 405B is — and GLM 5.3 Flash is 131K.
Do Llama 3.1 405B and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama 3.1 405B: none of these features are definitively sourced. GLM 5.3 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 3.1 405B or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Llama 3.1 405B has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Llama 3.1 405B 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.