Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGLM-5.3-Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 320B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.075GMICloud |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.25GMICloud |
| Benchmarks | ||
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 71% | 63.4% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 89.4% | 84.3% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1545 | 1773 |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 56.3% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 19.1% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 78.4% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 55.3% |
Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)Multidisciplinary reasoning — The re-checked edition of Humanity's Last Exam: the same extremely hard expert questions, minus the ones found to be flawed or wrongly answered. Scores on it run lower than on the original exam, so read the two as separate tests rather than a before-and-after. Higher is better. | 54.9% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 56.5% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 88.8% | — |
LAB-Bench 2Biology — Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | 86.2% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 59% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 26.3% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 48.8% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 61.4% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 10% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.2% | — |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 89.4% |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | — | 78% |
OfficeQA ProDocument Q&A — Questions about office documents, where answering depends on reading the page as a document — layout, tables and figures included — rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 62.4% |
MVBenchVideo understanding — Video questions that cannot be answered from any single frame: the AI has to follow what changes over time — the order things happen in, what moved where. Higher is better. | — | 77.8% |
MMVUVideo reasoning — Expert-level video questions drawn from specific disciplines, where answering means applying subject knowledge to what is happening on screen rather than just describing it. Higher is better. | — | 80.5% |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 35% | — |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 87.1% | — |
LVBench · agenticVideo understanding — The same long-video test, run with the AI free to navigate the video itself — skipping around, replaying sections — rather than being shown it once. Read it as a separate test from the unaided run above. Higher is better. | 87.8% | — |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Z.ai | |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.8 FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.3-FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolGLM-5.3-FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.8 FlashvsMuse GlimmerGLM-5.3-FlashvsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.8 FlashvsGrok 4.6GLM-5.3-FlashvsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.8 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.3-FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.8 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.3-FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.8 Flash leads GLM-5.3-Flash on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1, GDPval-AA v2). GLM-5.3-Flash shipped 7 days before Gemini 3.8 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.8 Flash) vs 1M (GLM-5.3-Flash). Gemini 3.8 Flash is proprietary, while GLM-5.3-Flash is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads at 71% vs GLM-5.3-Flash at 63.4%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads at 89.4% vs GLM-5.3-Flash at 84.3%. On GDPval-AA v2, GLM-5.3-Flash leads at 1773 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 1545.
Gemini 3.8 Flash was released by Google on Sep 2 2026.
GLM-5.3-Flash was released by Z.ai on Aug 26 2026.
Gemini 3.8 Flash leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Gemini 3.8 Flash 71% vs GLM-5.3-Flash 63.4%.
Gemini 3.8 Flash has a 1M context window; GLM-5.3-Flash has 1M.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. GLM-5.3-Flash is an open weight model released by Z.ai.