Compare / head-to-head

GLM-5.3-FlashXvsGPT-6 Sol

GLM-5.3-FlashX and GPT-6 Sol do not yet share a public benchmark, so quality cannot be compared apples-to-apples. GLM-5.3-FlashX is 7.4x cheaper per token. GPT-6 Sol has the larger context window (1.1M 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-5.3-FlashX
7.4x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
GPT-6 Sol
1.1M tokens
Providers
2 providers
Z.ai · OpenAI
textvisionvideo
Context
1M
Max out
131K
Input /1M
$0.37 ↗
Output /1M
$1.25 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.075
Scores
0 · 0 core
GPT-6 Sol
OpenAI · released 2026-09-22
textvision
Context
1.1M
Max out
128K
Input /1M
$2 ↗
Output /1M
$10 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.2
Scores
27 · 8 core
Quality

Benchmark matrix

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashXGPT-6 SolΔEdge
Reported by both · 0
No public benchmark is reported for both models yet.
Only GLM-5.3-FlashX reports · 0
GLM-5.3-FlashX reports nothing GPT-6 Sol does not.
Only GPT-6 Sol reports · 27
GPQA Diamondnot reported94.3% ↗epoch run——
LMArena Elonot reported1457.2 ↗——
Agents' Last Exam V1not reported56.4% ↗——
APEX-Agents (Mercor)not reported54.3% ↗——
AutomationBench 1.0.6not reported33.2% ↗——
DeepSWE v1.1not reported68.8% ↗——
EBR-bench (Epoch AI run)not reported53.3% ↗epoch run——
FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run)not reported90% ↗epoch run——
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run)not reported89.8% ↗epoch run——
Furniture Assembly (Epoch AI run)not reported58.3% ↗epoch run——
LiveBench Agentic Coding (LiveBench)not reported52.9% ↗——
LiveBench Coding (LiveBench)not reported81.8% ↗——
LiveBench Data Analysis (LiveBench)not reported81.2% ↗——
LiveBench Instruction Following (LiveBench)not reported68.6% ↗——
LiveBench Language (LiveBench)not reported85.3% ↗——
LiveBench Mathematics (LiveBench)not reported96.4% ↗——
LiveBench Reasoning (LiveBench)not reported88.7% ↗——
LMArena Agent (LMArena)not reported0.0971 ↗——
LMArena WebDev (LMArena)not reported1689 ↗——
Mystery Game Puzzles (Epoch AI run)not reported56% ↗epoch run——
OSWorld 2.0 (offline, partial)not reported60.5% ↗——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run)not reported100% ↗epoch run——
SAGE (Vals AI)not reported44.8% ↗——
SimpleBench (SimpleBench)not reported73.1% ↗——
SimpleQA Verifiednot reported60.7% ↗epoch run——
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals AI)not reported44.4% ↗——
Vending-Bench 2 (Andon Labs)not reported14427.85 ↗——
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-5.3-FlashX minus GPT-6 Sol 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

SpecGLM-5.3-FlashXGPT-6 SolEdge
Context window1M tokens1.1M tokensGPT-6 Sol
Max output131K tokens128K tokensGLM-5.3-FlashX
Input price / 1M$0.37 ↗$2 ↗GLM-5.3-FlashX
Output price / 1M$1.25 ↗$10 ↗GLM-5.3-FlashX
Cached input / 1M$0.075 ↗$0.2 ↗GLM-5.3-FlashX
Input + output / 1M
Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded.
$1.62$12GLM-5.3-FlashX
Modalitiestext · vision · videotext · visionGLM-5.3-FlashX
Released—2026-09-22—
Cited benchmark scores027—
Reliability

Provider status

All providers →
More matchups

GPT-6 Sol vs …

Built by Respan
Which one wins on your data?

Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run GLM-5.3-FlashX and GPT-6 Sol on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.