How do GLM-5.3-Flash and Composer 2.5 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both GLM-5.3-Flash and Composer 2.5 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Composer 2.5: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Q: Which is better: GLM-5.3-Flash or Composer 2.5?

AskClash compares GLM-5.3-Flash and Composer 2.5 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

Side-by-side GLM-5.3-Flash vs Composer 2.5 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Open live leaderboard GLM-5.3-Flash model page Composer 2.5 model page

Rank #7 vs #47AskClash overall scores 71.8 vs 18.1.

Pricing $0.15/$0.50 vs $0.50/$2.50Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Open Weight vs ProprietaryZ.AI vs Cursor.

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Composer 2.5 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	GLM-5.3-Flash	Composer 2.5
Overall Score	71.8	18.1
Leaderboard Rank	#7	#47
ACB	61.2	53.2
RWT	8.5	8.5
Coding Agent Index	—	38.3
HLE	55.3	—
GPQA	91.2	—
SWE-Pro	—	47.0
SWE-Atlas	—	72.0
Terminal-Bench	84.3	69.3
DeepSWE	63.4	—
GDPval-AA	1773.0	—
CharXiv	89.4	—
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$0.15	$0.50
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$0.50	$2.50
Context Window	1M	200K
Benchmarks Published	8	5

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Composer 2.5 head-to-head charts

GLM-5.3-Flash leads 3 and Composer 2.5 leads 0 of 4 shared benchmarks. GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

GLM-5.3-FlashComposer 2.5

Overall

71.8GLM-5.3-Flash

18.1Composer 2.5

ACB

61.2GLM-5.3-Flash

53.2Composer 2.5

RWT

8.5GLM-5.3-Flash

8.5Composer 2.5

Terminal-Bench

84.3GLM-5.3-Flash

69.3Composer 2.5

GLM-5.3-Flash

Input$0.15

Output$0.50

Workload$0.25

Context1M

Composer 2.5

Input$0.50

Output$2.50

Workload$1.00

Context200K

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More GLM-5.3-Flash and Composer 2.5 comparisons

Explore how GLM-5.3-Flash and Composer 2.5 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash Claude Opus 5 vs Composer 2.5 Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5 GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash GLM-5.3 vs Composer 2.5 Grok 4.6 vs GLM-5.3-Flash Grok 4.6 vs Composer 2.5 GPT-5.6 Sol vs GLM-5.3-Flash GPT-5.6 Sol vs Composer 2.5

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.