Skip to content
#07SOct 16, 2026Evidence B

GLM-5.3-Flash

Zhipu AI · Undisclosed (distilled lightweight)

GLM-5.3 capability at ¥3

Released 16 October 2026 as the lightweight GLM-5.3: documents 96, perception 95 and agents 94 sit only one to two points below the flagship, at a third of its price (¥3 versus ¥9), with an ecosystem score of 98 — the top band here. Composite 93.7 ranks #7 overall, the first genuinely usable option for “domestic-chip plus tight budget”. The trade-offs are explicit: video 90 and generation 86, so keep long video and creative work away from it.

TextImageVideoGUINative

Last updated Oct 18, 2026Editorial scoring

Bottom line

When a domestic-chip budget is squeezed, GLM-5.3-Flash is currently the only product that combines Ascend support, an on-prem licence and a ¥3 price. It gives up 1.7 points versus GLM-5.3 while costing ¥6 less — spending those ¥6 on a general flagship is usually the better allocation. Note the grade B, the undisclosed parameters and the absence of long-run stability data.

Eight-dimension breakdown

editorial mapping · 0–100
Perception95Document96Chart QA93Video90Agent94Generation86Chinese94Ecosystem988D
  • GLM-5.3-Flash93.7
Visual perception & grounding20%
95
Document parsing & Chinese OCR18%
96
Chart & document reasoning14%
93
Video & long-horizon reasoning14%
90
GUI agents & tool use14%
94
Generation & editing6%
86
Chinese context & culture6%
94
Ecosystem, cost & availability8%
98

Weights: perception 20 / documents 18 / charts 14 / video 14 / agents 14 / generation 6 / Chinese 6 / ecosystem 8. Definitions and sources on the methodology page.

Public benchmarks

as reported, not converted
Benchmark / metricValueNote
SuperCLUE-VLM 2026-1088.6Vendor figure; up from GLM-5
输出价格¥3One third of GLM-5.3
上下文200KSame as GLM-5

Public scores come from different versions and prompts and are not interchangeable with our composite; they are one evidence input.

Scenario mapping

five stress tests, one scale
ScenarioScoreObservation
Chinese receipt OCR95 · Stable on clean receipts and official forms
Chart data extraction92 · Reliable on standard charts; average on stacked ones
30-min video QA88 · Long video remains the weak spot
Mobile GUI control93 · Well-formed tool calls; above-average recovery
Chinese cultural context94 · Solid on official register

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • At ¥3/1M output tokens it is the cheapest in its capability band, Ascend images and on-prem licence included.
  • Documents 96, perception 95 and agents 94 sit 1–2 points below the flagship — enough for document batches and tool use.
  • Ecosystem 98 — official SDK, transparent rate limits, domestic-accelerator support — top band on the board.

Limitations

  • Video 90 and generation 86: neither long-video QA nor creative generation is its scenario.
  • Parameters and training details are undisclosed; the distillation source cannot be verified.
  • Grade B: vendor figures only, with third-party reproduction still pending.

Price and real cost

List price

¥3/M tokens

≈ ¥3 / 1M output tokens. For 1,000 images at 1,024px, ~1,100 image tokens each and 300 output tokens, the monthly cost is about ¥1.8 (assuming input at 25% of output price).

Use your volume

About GLM-5.3-Flash

Is GLM-5.3-Flash open source?

Licence: Commercial + on-prem licence (Ascend images included). No public weights; access is via vendor API or an on-prem licence.

How much does GLM-5.3-Flash cost?

≈ ¥3 / 1M output tokens. It ranks #7 with a composite of 93.7. Real bills depend on resolution, tiling, caching and volume discounts.

What is GLM-5.3-Flash best for?

Domestic-chip projects on a tight budget; Document batches and receipt extraction; Lightweight agents and tool orchestration。

Why does GLM-5.3-Flash score 93.7?

The composite weights eight dimensions: perception 20%, documents 18%, charts 14%, video 14%, agents 14%, generation 6%, Chinese 6%, ecosystem 8%. Its strongest dimension is Ecosystem, cost & availability; its weakest is Generation & editing.

Personal ranking · Not an official score

Every ranking, score and comparison on this page is an independent personal ranking, not an official score, and represents no vendor, institution or regulator. Scores are a subjective mapping of public evidence under our own weights — change the weights and the order changes. Disagree, or spotted a factual error? Contact the site owner: jizhi2024@foxmail.com — we check each report and log corrections in the changelog.