Ling 3.0 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Compare Ling 3.0 Flash from inclusionai and GLM 5.3 Flash from Z.ai on key metrics including benchmarks, price, context length, and other model features. Access both models and hundreds of others through the OpenRouter API.
Overview
Analysis
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash at a glance
| Attribute | Ling 3.0 Flash | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.021/M tokens | $0.0399/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.063/M tokens | $0.0784/M tokens |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Intelligence Index | Not available | 27.8 |
| Coding Index | 50.6 | 71.5 |
| Agentic Index | 19.3 | 50.9 |
| Latency (p50) | 0.89 s | 0.57 s |
| Throughput (p50) | 76.0 tok/s | 104.0 tok/s |
| Provided by | inclusionai | Z.ai |
| Model page | Ling 3.0 Flash model details, providers and pricing | GLM 5.3 Flash model details, providers and pricing |
Benchmark data updated
Frequently asked questions
Is Ling 3.0 Flash cheaper than GLM 5.3 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper than GLM 5.3 Flash on OpenRouter: Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.021/M tokens input and $0.063/M tokens output, while GLM 5.3 Flash costs $0.0399/M tokens input and $0.0784/M tokens output.
Which has the longer context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash has the longer context window at 1,048,576 tokens, compared with 262,144 tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash.
Which is faster, Ling 3.0 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash is faster on OpenRouter, generating a median 104.0 tokens per second compared with 76.0 tokens per second for Ling 3.0 Flash.
Which scores higher on coding, Ling 3.0 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash scores higher on coding, with an Artificial Analysis Coding Index of 71.5 compared with 50.6 for Ling 3.0 Flash.