LLaMA 3.2vsGLM-5.3-Flash
LLaMA 3.2 | 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. | 1B/3B | 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 |
| 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. | $0.027Cloudflare | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.201Cloudflare | — |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | — | 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. | — | 84.3% |
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% |
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% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1773 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Z.ai |
| Release date | Sep 25 2024 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
LLaMA 3.2vsClaude Opus 5GLM-5.3-FlashvsClaude Opus 5LLaMA 3.2vsGPT-5.6 SolGLM-5.3-FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolLLaMA 3.2vsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.3-FlashvsGemini 3.7 FlashLLaMA 3.2vsGrok 4.6GLM-5.3-FlashvsGrok 4.6LLaMA 3.2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.3-FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813LLaMA 3.2vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.3-FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
LLaMA 3.2 and GLM-5.3-Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. LLaMA 3.2 shipped 700 days before GLM-5.3-Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
LLaMA 3.2 has 1B/3B parameters, while GLM-5.3-Flash has 320B.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — LLaMA 3.2 and GLM-5.3-Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
LLaMA 3.2 was released by Meta on Sep 25 2024.
GLM-5.3-Flash was released by Z.ai on Aug 26 2026.