AI model comparison
Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3
Pricing, context window, benchmarks, and features compared side by side. Or skip the guesswork and send one prompt to both.
inclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
- Input / 1M
- $0.00
- Output / 1M
- $0.00
- Context
- 262K
Z.ai
GLM 5.3
GLM-5.3 is a large-scale reasoning model from Z.ai, built for complex software engineering and long-horizon agent tasks.
- Input / 1M
- $0.04
- Output / 1M
- $7
- Context
- 1.05M
At a glance
Quick verdict
How the two models stack up on the things people ask about most.
Lower price
Ling 3.1 Flash
Free for a typical chat
Higher intelligence score
GLM 5.3
44.8 vs 41.1 on Artificial Analysis
Larger context window
GLM 5.3
1.05M vs 262K tokens
Newer release
Ling 3.1 Flash
Released October 2, 2026
Benchmarks
Benchmark scores
Independent scores from Artificial Analysis. Higher is better.
Intelligence index
Coding index
Agentic index
Pricing
Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3 API pricing
Per-token API rates. Cheaper option highlighted.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input tokensPer 1M tokens | $0.00 | $0.04 |
| Output tokensPer 1M tokens | $0.00 | $7 |
| Cached input (read)Per 1M tokens | Not available | $0.04 |
| Cache writePer 1M tokens | Not available | Not available |
What it costs in practice
Estimated cost per 1,000 requests at standard rates. Coding and long-document figures also show the cost when the input is already cached.
Chat message
2K in, 500 out
Coding task
30K in, 4K out
Long document summary
150K in, 2K out
Specs
Context window and capabilities
How much each model can read, how much it can write, and what it accepts as input.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Context window | 262K tokens | 1.05M tokens |
| Max output | 33K tokens | 944K tokens |
| Input types | Text | Text |
| Output types | Text | Text |
| Reasoning effort levels | Not available | Max, High, Low |
| Default reasoning effort | Not available | Max |
| Release date | October 2, 2026 | August 18, 2026 |
Features
Supported features
API features available for each model.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | Supported | Supported |
| Structured outputs | Not supported | Supported |
| JSON mode | Not supported | Supported |
| Reasoning | Supported | Supported |
| Temperature | Supported | Supported |
| Stop sequences | Supported | Supported |
| Deterministic seed | Supported | Supported |
| Verbosity control | Not supported | Not supported |
Keep exploring
More on these models
Other head-to-heads, the full model page, and the alternatives list for each model.
- GLM 5.3 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
- GLM 5.3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- GLM 5.3 vs Hy4 preview
- GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6 Luna
- GLM 5.3 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GLM 5.3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- GLM 5.3 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
- GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6 Astra
- GLM 5.3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423
- GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- GLM 5.3 vs Step 5 Preview
- GLM 5.3 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- GLM 5.3 vs Hy3
- GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.3
- GLM 5.3 vs GPT-6 Sol
- GLM 5.3 vs Kimi K3
- GLM 5.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
- GLM 5.3 vs Grok 4.7
- GLM 5.3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
- GLM 5.3 vs GLM 5.2
- GLM 5.3 vs Grok 4.6
- GLM 5.3 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
- GLM 5.3 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
- GLM 5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- GLM 5.3 vs Claude Opus 4.7
- GLM 5.3 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
- GLM 5.3 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
- GLM 5.3 vs Muse Spark 1.2
- GLM 5.3 vs Grok 4.5
Our take
GLM 5.3 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (44.8 vs 41.1). GLM 5.3 has the larger context window (1.05M vs 262K tokens). The right pick depends on your workload, so the quickest way to settle it is to send the same prompt to both and compare.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is Ling 3.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 cheaper?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper for a typical chat (2K input tokens and 500 output tokens). Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.00 per 1M input tokens and $0.00 per 1M output tokens, while GLM 5.3 costs $0.04 per 1M input tokens and $7 per 1M output tokens.
Which has a bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or GLM 5.3?
GLM 5.3 supports up to 1.05M tokens of context, compared with 262K for Ling 3.1 Flash.
Is Ling 3.1 Flash smarter than GLM 5.3?
On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Ling 3.1 Flash scores 41.1 and GLM 5.3 scores 44.8, putting GLM 5.3 ahead. Benchmarks don't capture everything, so the best test is running your own prompts through both.
Can I use Ling 3.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 at the same time?
Yes. Shortcut Chat sends one prompt to multiple models at once, so you can see Ling 3.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 answer side by side and keep the better response.
Why choose? Ask both.
Send one prompt to Ling 3.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 at the same time. Compare the answers side by side and keep the best one.