o3-pro vs GLM 5.3
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | o3-pro | GLM-5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Z.ai |
| Family | O3 | Glm 5 3 |
| Model | o3-pro | GLM-5.3 |
| Version | o3-pro | GLM-5.3 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-06-10 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 200K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
o3-pro Capabilities
GLM 5.3 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | vs | o3-proOpenAI | developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
o3-proOpenAI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
o3-proOpenAI | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
o3-proOpenAI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
| vs | o3-proOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
o3-pro vs GLM 5.3 FAQs
Is o3-pro or GLM 5.3 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both o3-pro and GLM 5.3, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, o3-pro or GLM 5.3?+
o3-pro is $20.00 and GLM 5.3 is $1.20 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 is cheaper on this metric. o3-pro is $80.00 and GLM 5.3 is $4.00 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, o3-pro or GLM 5.3?+
GLM 5.3 has the larger sourced context window. o3-pro supports 200K and GLM 5.3 supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, o3-pro or GLM 5.3?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can o3-pro or GLM 5.3 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. o3-pro is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 is not marked open weight.
Can o3-pro and GLM 5.3 understand images?+
o3-pro 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, o3-pro or GLM 5.3?+
GLM 5.3 has the larger sourced maximum output: o3-pro supports 100K and GLM 5.3 supports 131K output tokens.
Do o3-pro and GLM 5.3 support reasoning and tool use?+
o3-pro: 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, o3-pro or GLM 5.3?+
o3-pro has 2 sourced provider routes; GLM 5.3 has 4, so GLM 5.3 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, o3-pro 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.