Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3

Ling 3.1 Flash (InclusionAI) and GLM 5.3 (Z.ai) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 4 October 2026

As of 4 October 2026, GLM 5.3 holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#11 vs #16); Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper per output token (Free/1M vs $4.40/1M); and GLM 5.3 offers the longer context window (1M vs 262K tokens).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash if…

  • API cost matters — Free/1M output tokens against $4.40/1M.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost Free/1M against $1.40/1M.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.1 Flash was listed 2 October 2026, GLM 5.3 18 August 2026.

Choose GLM 5.3 if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #11 against #16 (79.9 vs 78.1 points).
  • you need the longer context window — 1M tokens against 262K.
  • you want provider choice — 32 listed API providers against 1.
  • AA Intelligence Index is your yardstick — 44.8 against 41.1.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 42.3% against 39.4%.

Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Ling 3.1 Flash and GLM 5.3
FieldLing 3.1 FlashInclusionAIGLM 5.3Z.ai
ModelCap Index position#16#11
Index score78.179.9
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokensFree$1.40
Output price / 1M tokensFree$4.40
Context window262K tokens1M tokens
Declared route output cap33K131K
API providers listed132
Weight accessNo linked weightsRestricted license
Input modalitiesTextText
First listed2 October 202618 August 2026
PublisherInclusionAIZ.ai

Evidence: 1 public benchmark observation across 1 board · 4 public benchmark observations across 4 boards. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 has a published result
BoardLing 3.1 FlashGLM 5.3Leads
Arena textArena (LMArena)—14781473–1484MaxOnly one result
Arena codingArena (LMArena)—15211511–1530MaxOnly one result
LMArena AgentLMArena—2.4%1.7%–3.0%MaxOnly one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis41.1Reasoning44.8MaxGLM 5.3
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis—83.9%MaxOnly one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis39.4%Reasoning42.3%MaxGLM 5.3
Terminal-Bench 4.0Terminal-Bench (Laude Institute)—41.8%38.6%–45.1%Claude Code · MaxOnly one result

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3: common questions

Is Ling 3.1 Flash better than GLM 5.3?

GLM 5.3 ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 4 October 2026: #11 against #16. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Ling 3.1 Flash cheaper than GLM 5.3?

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: Free/1M against $4.40/1M. Input tokens are Free/1M for Ling 3.1 Flash and $1.40/1M for GLM 5.3. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0 for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $5.00 for GLM 5.3. Ling 3.1 Flash costs 100.0% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or GLM 5.3?

GLM 5.3 has the larger context window: 1M tokens against 262K. OpenRouter catalogue or provider-endpoint declaration. Limits can vary by provider and prompt length; a model-wide maximum has not been independently verified.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.1 Flash or GLM 5.3?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are Ling 3.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 open-weight models?

Ling 3.1 Flash: No linked weights. GLM 5.3: Restricted license. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence. A missing weight link does not identify every API or chat product that offers a model.

Where can I run Ling 3.1 Flash and GLM 5.3?

ModelCap currently lists 1 API provider for Ling 3.1 Flash and 32 for GLM 5.3, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3 comparison?

Every figure and ModelCap Index position comes from the same published snapshot dated 4 October 2026. Publication and page updates happen separately; use the snapshot date shown on the page.

Explore further