Compare AI models
| 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. | 80B | 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. | 256k | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.30 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $1.50 | — |
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. | $0.12Parasail | $0.04Relace |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.80Parasail | $0.23StreamLake |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 44.3% | — |
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. | 70.6% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 62.8% | — |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 36.8% |
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% |
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 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% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 36.2% | — |
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% |
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 |
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% |
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% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1378 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | Z.ai |
| Release date | Feb 3 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Haiku 5.5GLM-5.3-FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-5.3-FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-5.3-FlashvsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3-Coder-NextvsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-5.3-FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.7GLM-5.3-FlashvsGrok 4.7Qwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGLM-5.3-FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Qwen3-Coder-Next and GLM-5.3-Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Qwen3-Coder-Next has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for GLM-5.3-Flash. Qwen3-Coder-Next shipped 204 days before GLM-5.3-Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3-Coder-Next has 80B parameters, while GLM-5.3-Flash has 320B. Context windows are 256k (Qwen3-Coder-Next) vs 1M (GLM-5.3-Flash).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Qwen3-Coder-Next and GLM-5.3-Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.