Flagship GLM model for long-horizon coding, agents, and complex project delivery
GLM-5.3 by zhipuai is offered by 82 providers on this page. Public prices are shown for 71 of them. Its official list price is $1.40 per 1M input tokens and $4.40 per 1M output tokens. The lowest paid channel is CrofAI at $0.40 / $1.40 per 1M, about 7.0× below the list price. That channel is a third-party gateway, so confirm its availability and rate limits before depending on it. It also has 3 free ($0) channels and 7 covered by a paid subscription; free tiers usually carry rate limits, and subscription-covered access bills $0 per token only after the subscription fee.
Artificial Analysis rates it 44.8 on the Intelligence Index, with 74.8 for coding and 53.1 for agentic tasks. Against its lowest blended price of $0.65 per 1M, that is roughly 69 index points per dollar, which is the value ratio the leaderboards rank on. Median output speed is 83 tokens per second, with 2.63s to the first token. Running one task of the Artificial Analysis suite costs about $2.0056, which reflects how many tokens its reasoning consumes rather than the unit price alone.
The context window is 1,000,000 tokens at the reference host, but hosts report different limits, from 327,680 to 1,049,000, so the usable window depends on the provider you pick. It supports reasoning, tool use, and structured output. Accepted input modalities are Text and Image. The weights are open, so it can also be self-hosted or served through a gateway of your choice. Providers report the capability flags inconsistently, so verify a specific feature against the host you plan to use.
Quality is independently evaluated by Artificial Analysis. Speed/latency are model-level medians.
| Provider | Tier | Input | Output | Cache read | Cache write | Context | Output limit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alibaba Token Plan | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | $0 | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| NaN glm5.3 | Gateway | Free | — | — | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Umans AI Coding Plan umans-glm-5.3 | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | $0 | 1,048,576 ⚠ | 131,071 | ||
| Alibaba Token Plan (China) | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | $0 | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Zhipu AI Coding Plan | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | $0 | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Volcengine Ark Coding Plan | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | — | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Z.AI Coding Plan | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | $0 | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| SCNet Token Plan GLM-5.3 | Gateway | Subscription | $0 | — | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Nvidia | Cloud | Free | — | — | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Kenari glm-5-3 | Gateway | Free | — | — | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | ||
| Z.AIOfficial | First-party | $1.40 | $4.40 | $0.26 | $0 | 1,000,000 | 131,072 | |
Sorted by blended price (input×0.75 + output×0.25) asc. The official channel always shows regardless of rank. Whether a gateway's low price is actually usable can't be verified.
Interleaved thinking (reasoning between tool calls) is declared by 37 of 82 providers.
5 / 82 providers expose no reasoning control (reasoning_options: []).
| Mode | Provider | Input | Output | Cache read | Cache write |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| priority | Fireworks AI | $1.75 | $5.50 | $0.33 | — |
10 more channels offer $0 (Alibaba Token Plan, NaN, Umans AI Coding Plan etc.); free tiers usually have rate limits and no SLA, excluded from ranking.
| Name | Conditions | Score | Metric | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort · v2.1 | 88.2 | pass@1 | Source ↗ |
| Terminal-Bench | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort · v3.0 | 28.3 | avg@3 | Source ↗ |
| DeepSWE | harness: mini-swe-agent · variant: max effort; 6h timeout; 400K context · v1.1 | 66.9 | resolved | Source ↗ |
| NL2Repo | variant: max effort | 58 | score | Source ↗ |
| ProgramBench | variant: max effort | 19 | almost solved | Source ↗ |
| FrontierSWE | variant: max effort | 78.1 | dominance score | Source ↗ |
| SWE-Marathon | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort; modified anti-cheat checks · v1.1 | 42.5 | score | Source ↗ |
| PostTrainBench | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort; 3 runs; modified external-API checks | 39.8 | weighted average | Source ↗ |
| CyberGym | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort | 84.5 | pass@1 | Source ↗ |
| ExploitGym | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort; 2h rescaled timeout · dataset: 869 tasks | 105 | tasks solved | Source ↗ |
| ExploitGym | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort; 6h rescaled timeout · dataset: 869 tasks | 130 | tasks solved | Source ↗ |
| ExploitBench | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort; union over 3 revisions | 54.4 | average coverage | Source ↗ |
| Toolathlon-Verified | variant: max effort | 73 | pass@1 | Source ↗ |
| AutomationBench | variant: max effort · v1.0.6 | 48.2 | pass@1 | Source ↗ |
| Agents' Last Exam | harness: Claude Code 2.1.207 · variant: max effort; CLI | 28.5 | score | Source ↗ |
| Humanity's Last Exam | variant: max effort; with tools | 62.5 | accuracy | Source ↗ |
| GDPval-AA | variant: max effort · v2 | 1769 | Elo | Source ↗ |
The same benchmark scores very differently across harness / dataset, so the qualifying conditions must be shown together.
Individual evaluations run by Artificial Analysis, on the same reasoning tier as the intelligence score above. Each benchmark has its own task set and harness, so rows are not comparable with one another. The Intelligence Index above draws on a different, newer set of evaluations.