Lyria 3.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Lyria 3.5Google 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 | 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 | 1,049K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 22, 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 | Lyria 3.5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Z.ai |
| Family | Lyria | Glm 5 3 Flash |
| Model | Lyria 3.5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Version | Lyria 3.5 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-07-29 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Document |
| Output modalities | Text, Audio | 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 | generation, image-to-music, lyrics, music-generation, synthid, vocals | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Lyria 3.5 Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs | GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Lyria 3.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQs
Is Lyria 3.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Lyria 3.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Lyria 3.5 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, Lyria 3.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Lyria 3.5 has the larger sourced context window. Lyria 3.5 supports 1,049K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Lyria 3.5 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 Lyria 3.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash be self-hosted?+
GLM 5.3 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Lyria 3.5 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 Flash is open weight.
Can Lyria 3.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash understand images?+
Lyria 3.5 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, Lyria 3.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Lyria 3.5 supports 66K and GLM 5.3 Flash supports 131K output tokens.
Do Lyria 3.5 and GLM 5.3 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Lyria 3.5: 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, Lyria 3.5 or GLM 5.3 Flash?+
Lyria 3.5 has 2 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 Flash has 4, so GLM 5.3 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Lyria 3.5 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.