Muse GlimmervsGLM-5.3-Flash
Muse Glimmer | 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. | 30B | 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. | $0.30DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.10Parasail | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 51.7% | 84.3% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | 1773 |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 51.2% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76% | — |
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% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 75.5% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 22% | — |
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% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.9% | — |
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% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Opus 5GLM-5.3-FlashvsClaude Opus 5Muse GlimmervsGPT-5.6 SolGLM-5.3-FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.3-FlashvsGemini 3.7 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.6GLM-5.3-FlashvsGrok 4.6Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.3-FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.3-FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
GLM-5.3-Flash leads Muse Glimmer on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1, GDPval-AA v2). Muse Glimmer shipped 16 days before GLM-5.3-Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while GLM-5.3-Flash has 320B.
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, GLM-5.3-Flash leads at 84.3% vs Muse Glimmer at 51.7%. On GDPval-AA v2, GLM-5.3-Flash leads at 1773 vs Muse Glimmer at 953.
Muse Glimmer was released by Meta on Aug 10 2026.
GLM-5.3-Flash was released by Z.ai on Aug 26 2026.
GLM-5.3-Flash leads on Terminal-Bench 2.1 — Muse Glimmer 51.7% vs GLM-5.3-Flash 84.3%.