Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Very impressive score for the size, though token use is higher than k3 and far higher than proprietary models, and its price to performance isn't all that far ahead of k3 as a result
- Does Artificial Analysis use OpenRouter for model access to do their benchmarks?by swingboy
- Is it worth using these models if I have a claude code subscription already? The appeal of lower cost is nice but I haven't gotten over the switching cost yet.by Zaheer
- I understand that running these benchmarks can get expensive, but it would be really nice to see AA include more benchmarks of models at reasoning settings other than the maximum, at least for the biggest releases. They have that nice graph of cost vs. composite benchmark score with the Pareto frontier line, but who knows if those are actually the optimal choices? There are already a few non-max-reasoning models on the Pareto line, among the few that were tested.by AnodicElegy
- Beware of the benchmarks listed. SciCode and EnterpriseOps for instance: https://shukla.io/blog/2026-08/gym.htmlby BinRoo
- Sol is an underappreciated model. Dropped Claude today and went to codex. None of that god awful prose Claude used for me any longer.by Escapade5160
- I've tested GLM 5.3 on the release day and Artificial Analysis is spot on. It's a really good model.
But my main takeaway was something else. I've used closed weight models for long enough that I've forgotten how good it feels to see reasoning tokens.
With GPT/Claude, you kind of hope that intent was captured well, that agent had all the information, all the tools it needed, because you won't see "hmmm it seems like nix flake isn't available here and I shouldn't install something globally" until it slopped out millions of tokens and wasted hundreds of dollars for 8 hours. With GLM and the likes, you just stop the disease right where it begins.
by glub - I like to compare models with a similar score on cost per task and output tokens per task since those measure two things I'm interested in: cost efficiency and token efficiency. Here's how GLM-5.3 compares to other models in a similar score and against GLM-5.2 to save a few clicks for others who care about these metrics:
Edited for accuracy and more models.Model Score Cost / Task Output Tokens / Task ------------------------------------------------------------------------- GLM-5.3 (max) 59.5 $0.68 41,107 GLM-5.2 (max) 53.0 $0.56 32,200 Claude Opus 5 (high) 61.5 $1.52 21,353 GPT-5.6 Sol (max) 60.9 $1.23 16,879 Grok 4.6 (high) 60.9 $0.84 21,735 Kimi K3 (max) 59.7 $0.84 25,474 GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) 59.0 $0.87 11,098 Claude Opus 5 (medium) 58.6 $0.98 12,459 Qwen3.8 Max 58.1 $1.13 38,287 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 57.7 $0.95 32,472 Claude Opus 4.8 (max) 57.3 $1.65 33,557 GPT-5.6 Sol (high) 57.3 $0.52 7,545 Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) 56.8 $0.40 30,430 GPT-5.6 Terra (max) 56.6 $0.51 20,838 GPT-5.5 (xhigh) 56.3 $0.69 16,893 Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) 56.0 $0.40 36,847by scotttrinh