Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs GLM 5.3

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort#16 of 4670.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 46.9–80.3
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#34 of 44$0.248 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort#26 of 3850.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 38.2–54.9
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$1.20Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$4.00Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,000K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkMistral-Medium-3.5-128BGLM-5.3
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader-10.8886% of row best · score · Mistral Medium 3.5; 95% CI [-12.33636331, -9.41760729]; sessions 10244; observations 358935; rank 433.05100% of row best · score · GLM 5.3 (Max); 95% CI [2.43618871, 3.66634458]; sessions 73287; observations 6652488; rank 18
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,420.5896% of row best · rating · mistral-medium-3.5; 95% CI [1414.04225396, 1427.11615611]; votes 10996; rank 1041,475.08100% of row best · rating · glm-5.3-max; 95% CI [1468.67816284, 1481.48915679]; votes 10960; rank 20
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner2 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

FieldMistral-Medium-3.5-128BGLM-5.3
DeveloperMistral AIZ.ai
FamilyMistral Medium 3 5 128bGlm 5 3
ModelMistral-Medium-3.5-128BGLM-5.3
VersionMistral-Medium-3.5-128BGLM-5.3
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknownUnknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,000K
Total parameters127.7BUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseotherUnknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableUnknownYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessUnknownDeepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers0
Canonical IDmistralai/Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B

GLM 5.3 Capabilities

agentschatreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers4
Canonical IDzai-org/glm-5.3

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs GLM 5.3 FAQs

Is Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and GLM 5.3, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3?+

Only GLM 5.3 has a directly sourced input price: $1.20 per million tokens. Only GLM 5.3 has a directly sourced output price: $4.00 per million tokens.

Which has a larger context window, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3?+

GLM 5.3 has the larger sourced context window. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B supports 262K and GLM 5.3 supports 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3 be self-hosted?+

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is open weight; GLM 5.3 is not marked open weight.

Can Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and GLM 5.3 understand images?+

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is — and GLM 5.3 is 131K.

Do Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and GLM 5.3 support reasoning and tool use?+

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3?+

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has 0 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 has 4, so GLM 5.3 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or GLM 5.3?+

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.

Send Feedback