GLM 5.3 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Compare GLM 5.3 Flash from Z.ai and Ling 3.0 Flash from inclusionai 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
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash at a glance
| Attribute | GLM 5.3 Flash | Ling 3.0 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.0399/M tokens | $0.021/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.0784/M tokens | $0.063/M tokens |
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Intelligence Index | 27.8 | Not available |
| Coding Index | 71.5 | 50.6 |
| Agentic Index | 50.9 | 19.3 |
| Latency (p50) | 0.53 s | 0.88 s |
| Throughput (p50) | 104.0 tok/s | 77.0 tok/s |
| Provided by | Z.ai | inclusionai |
| Model page | GLM 5.3 Flash model details, providers and pricing | Ling 3.0 Flash model details, providers and pricing |
Benchmark data updated
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM 5.3 Flash cheaper than Ling 3.0 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, GLM 5.3 Flash or Ling 3.0 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, GLM 5.3 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash is faster on OpenRouter, generating a median 104.0 tokens per second compared with 77.0 tokens per second for Ling 3.0 Flash.
Which scores higher on coding, GLM 5.3 Flash or Ling 3.0 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.