Compare / head-to-head
GLM-4 32B 0414 128KvsGLM-5.3
GLM-4 32B 0414 128K and GLM-5.3 do not yet share a public benchmark, so quality cannot be compared apples-to-apples. GLM-4 32B 0414 128K is 29x cheaper per token. GLM-5.3 has the larger context window (1M tokens).
Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.
Shared benchmarks
0
no overlap yet
Cheaper per token
GLM-4 32B 0414 128K
29x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
GLM-5.3
1M tokens
Provider uptime (30d)
—
Z.ai
GLM-4 32B 0414 128K
Z.ai · released 2025-04-14
text
Quality
Benchmark matrix
0 shared · 0 only GLM-4 32B 0414 128K · 24 only GLM-5.3| Benchmark | GLM-4 32B 0414 128K | GLM-5.3 | Δ | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported by both · 0 | ||||
| No public benchmark is reported for both models yet. | ||||
| Only GLM-4 32B 0414 128K reports · 0 | ||||
| GLM-4 32B 0414 128K reports nothing GLM-5.3 does not. | ||||
| Only GLM-5.3 reports · 24 | ||||
| GPQA Diamond | not reported | 90.9% ↗epoch | — | — |
| Agents' Last Exam | not reported | 28.5% ↗ | — | — |
| Agents' Last Exam (ALE-CLI) | not reported | 28.5% ↗ | — | — |
| AutomationBench v1.0.6 | not reported | 48.2% ↗ | — | — |
| CyberGym | not reported | 84.5% ↗ | — | — |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | not reported | 66.9% ↗ | — | — |
| ExploitBench | not reported | 54.4% ↗ | — | — |
| ExploitGym 2h | not reported | 105 ↗ | — | — |
| ExploitGym 6h | not reported | 130 ↗ | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 29.3% ↗epoch | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 68.8% ↗epoch | — | — |
| FrontierSWE | not reported | 78.1% ↗ | — | — |
| GDPval-AA v2 | not reported | 1769 ↗ | — | — |
| HLE (with tools) | not reported | 62.5% ↗ | — | — |
| NL2Repo | not reported | 58% ↗ | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 91.1% ↗epoch | — | — |
| PostTrainBench | not reported | 39.8% ↗ | — | — |
| ProgramBench (Almost Solved) | not reported | 19% ↗ | — | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | not reported | 41% ↗epoch | — | — |
| SWE-Marathon v1.1 | not reported | 42.5% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | not reported | 88.2% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 3.0 | not reported | 28.3% ↗ | — | — |
| Toolathlon Verified | not reported | 73% ↗ | — | — |
| Z.ai Code Bench (max effort) | not reported | 34.5% ↗ | — | — |
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is GLM-4 32B 0414 128K minus GLM-5.3 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing
Side by side
Official pricing pages and model cards| Spec | GLM-4 32B 0414 128K | GLM-5.3 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context window | 131K tokens | 1M tokens | GLM-5.3 |
| Max output | 16K tokens | 131K tokens | GLM-5.3 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.1 ↗ | $1.4 ↗ | GLM-4 32B 0414 128K |
| Output price / 1M | $0.1 ↗ | $4.4 ↗ | GLM-4 32B 0414 128K |
| Cached input / 1M | — | $0.26 ↗ | — |
| Input + output / 1M Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded. | $0.2 | $5.8 | GLM-4 32B 0414 128K |
| Modalities | text | text | Tie |
| Released | 2025-04-14 | 2026-08-14 | — |
| Cited benchmark scores | 0 | 33 | — |
Reliability
Z.ai status
Last 60 days · refreshed daily on this page · live on /statusMore matchups
GLM-5.3 vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksBuilt by Respan
Which one wins on your data?
Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run GLM-4 32B 0414 128K and GLM-5.3 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.