92 pointsby apitman5 hours ago12 comments
  • scotttrinh4 hours ago
    I like to compare models with a similar score on cost per task and output tokens per task since those measure two things I'm interested in: cost efficiency and token efficiency. Here's how GLM-5.3 compares to other models in a similar score and against GLM-5.2 to save a few clicks for others who care about these metrics:

        Model                        Score    Cost / Task    Output Tokens / Task
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        GLM-5.3 (max)                 59.5          $0.68                  41,107
        GLM-5.2 (max)                 53.0          $0.56                  32,200
        Claude Opus 5 (high)          61.5          $1.52                  21,353
        GPT-5.6 Sol (max)             60.9          $1.23                  16,879
        Grok 4.6 (high)               60.9          $0.84                  21,735
        Kimi K3 (max)                 59.7          $0.84                  25,474
        GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh)           59.0          $0.87                  11,098
        Claude Opus 5 (medium)        58.6          $0.98                  12,459
        Qwen3.8 Max                   58.1          $1.13                  38,287
        Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B             57.7          $0.95                  32,472
        Claude Opus 4.8 (max)         57.3          $1.65                  33,557
        GPT-5.6 Sol (high)            57.3          $0.52                   7,545
        Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)        56.8          $0.40                  30,430
        GPT-5.6 Terra (max)           56.6          $0.51                  20,838
        GPT-5.5 (xhigh)               56.3          $0.69                  16,893
        Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)       56.0          $0.40                  36,847
    
    Edited for accuracy and more models.
    • sourcecodeplz4 hours ago
      Muse Spark has a nice balance. not to mentions the Contribs version is old deepseek flash prices.
      • glub3 hours ago
        Tested muse spark 1.2 because it was rated so high on design arena, and I've missed a model that can do nice UI in the hands of an operator with no UI skills.

        It produced worse UI mockups than GPT and GPT models are already the bottom of the barrel here. The only model that performed well was Kimi K3 - insanely good, but expensive.

        It's hard to trust benchmarks these days.

      • sscaryterry4 hours ago
        I found the sweetspot here: GPT-5.6 Sol (high) 57.3 $0.52 7,545

        (Edit: TLDR; It gets on with it, makes the same mistakes you would, without overthinking and overengineering, most of the time)

    • dudeinhawaii3 hours ago
      It would make reading and comparing a bit easier if the data was sorted by a dimension.
      • ac292 hours ago
        Cost per task:

          Model                        Score    Cost / Task    Output Tokens / Task
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)        56.8          $0.40                  30,430
          Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)       56.0          $0.40                  36,847
          GPT-5.6 Terra (max)           56.6          $0.51                  20,838
          GPT-5.6 Sol (high)            57.3          $0.52                   7,545
          GLM-5.2 (max)                 53.0          $0.56                  32,200
          GLM-5.3 (max)                 59.5          $0.68                  41,107
          GPT-5.5 (xhigh)               56.3          $0.69                  16,893
          Grok 4.6 (high)               60.9          $0.84                  21,735
          Kimi K3 (max)                 59.7          $0.84                  25,474
          GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh)           59.0          $0.87                  11,098
          Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B             57.7          $0.95                  32,472
          Claude Opus 5 (medium)        58.6          $0.98                  12,459
          Qwen3.8 Max                   58.1          $1.13                  38,287
          GPT-5.6 Sol (max)             60.9          $1.23                  16,879
          Claude Opus 5 (high)          61.5          $1.52                  21,353
          Claude Opus 4.8 (max)         57.3          $1.65                  33,557
        
        Benchmark score:

          Model                        Score    Cost / Task    Output Tokens / Task
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Claude Opus 5 (high)          61.5          $1.52                  21,353
          GPT-5.6 Sol (max)             60.9          $1.23                  16,879
          Grok 4.6 (high)               60.9          $0.84                  21,735
          Kimi K3 (max)                 59.7          $0.84                  25,474
          GLM-5.3 (max)                 59.5          $0.68                  41,107
          GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh)           59.0          $0.87                  11,098
          Claude Opus 5 (medium)        58.6          $0.98                  12,459
          Qwen3.8 Max                   58.1          $1.13                  38,287
          Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B             57.7          $0.95                  32,472
          Claude Opus 4.8 (max)         57.3          $1.65                  33,557
          GPT-5.6 Sol (high)            57.3          $0.52                   7,545
          Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh)        56.8          $0.40                  30,430
          GPT-5.6 Terra (max)           56.6          $0.51                  20,838
          GPT-5.5 (xhigh)               56.3          $0.69                  16,893
          Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)       56.0          $0.40                  36,847
          GLM-5.2 (max)                 53.0          $0.56                  32,200
        • salamo39 minutes ago
          This matches my experience with Sol. Read and thought for a while, and edited files, tested, edited again, then ran out of budget in a relatively short time. But its solution was very good and was done quickly, so all things equal I prefer that over something much more verbose like Deepseek.
    • tw19842 hours ago
      this is not very useful.

      for over 1 billion real world users living in China, they don't have the option of paying $1.52 per task to use Opus 5, they are banned doing that due to US politics.

      • Barbing2 hours ago
        What’s the reseller situation?
    • teravor4 hours ago
      these $/task figures aren't very useful in my experience. it doesn't tell you how well it did the task.

      generally I choose models by their intelligence and then personal preference from direct experience.

      • kolinko4 hours ago
        they make a ton of sense for tasks that are achievable with no prob by all models - e.g. writing scripts that do a specific thing etc.
        • teravor3 hours ago

              > writing scripts
          
          you can use a Gemini model completely for free doing that. no agent. aistudio.google.com
  • glub4 hours ago
    I've tested GLM 5.3 on the release day and Artificial Analysis is spot on. It's a really good model.

    But my main takeaway was something else. I've used closed weight models for long enough that I've forgotten how good it feels to see reasoning tokens.

    With GPT/Claude, you kind of hope that intent was captured well, that agent had all the information, all the tools it needed, because you won't see "hmmm it seems like nix flake isn't available here and I shouldn't install something globally" until it slopped out millions of tokens and wasted hundreds of dollars for 8 hours. With GLM and the likes, you just stop the disease right where it begins.

    • Havoc4 hours ago
      Yes, not necessary often but being able to stop something that is going off the rails is super useful. Especially if the root cause is prompt ambiguity - inject a clarification & it recovers
      • glub3 hours ago
        It's also starting to go beyond reasoning and it's becoming much more problematic. Reasoning is one thing, but codex, for example now encrypts agent-to-agent messages as well, and compaction. I've no idea what subagents are instructed to do, or what they reported back in native codex.

        The only thing that's keeping me is the value $200 subscription provides. If that value disappears, I see no reason why not to switch to something that isn't a black box.

    • tw19842 hours ago
      With GPT/Claude, hiding those from users to waste their tokens is a feature, not a limitation.
  • AnodicElegy35 minutes ago
    I understand that running these benchmarks can get expensive, but it would be really nice to see AA include more benchmarks of models at reasoning settings other than the maximum, at least for the biggest releases. They have that nice graph of cost vs. composite benchmark score with the Pareto frontier line, but who knows if those are actually the optimal choices? There are already a few non-max-reasoning models on the Pareto line, among the few that were tested.
    • apitman27 minutes ago
      You can turn on various levels of some of many of the models in the UI
  • BinRoo4 hours ago
    Beware of the benchmarks listed. SciCode and EnterpriseOps for instance: https://shukla.io/blog/2026-08/gym.html
    • Onavo4 hours ago
      The Chinese models also like to cut corners on stuff like science. Their scores on stuff like biotech and scientific knowledge is far from ChatGPT unfortunately. (Claude is pretty good but it just refuses all prompts).
  • swingboy2 hours ago
    Does Artificial Analysis use OpenRouter for model access to do their benchmarks?
  • Escapade51602 hours ago
    Sol is an underappreciated model. Dropped Claude today and went to codex. None of that god awful prose Claude used for me any longer.
  • markasoftware4 hours ago
    Very impressive score for the size, though token use is higher than k3 and far higher than proprietary models, and its price to performance isn't all that far ahead of k3 as a result
    • Havoc4 hours ago
      >token use is higher than k3 and far higher than proprietary models

      GLM sets effort to max by default historically.

  • Zaheer4 hours ago
    Is it worth using these models if I have a claude code subscription already? The appeal of lower cost is nice but I haven't gotten over the switching cost yet.
    • robertn7023 hours ago
      FYI, you can use your Claude subscription pricing with OpenCode via Meridian[0], which also makes it easier to try out other models when they come out. You can also use your other subscriptions in OpenCode with CLIProxyAPI[1]. The switching cost was relatively high, mostly from claude code plugins but completely worth it. I'm now mostly using GLM-5.3 and Codex models via OpenCode and barely using Claude which seemed unfathomable less than two months ago.

      [0] https://github.com/rynfar/meridian

      [1] https://github.com/router-for-me/CLIProxyAPI

      edit: reworded for clarity

    • oceanplexian3 hours ago
      I use the $200 plan w/ Anthropic and run out of tokens half way through the week and supposedly they are progressively reducing the limits on all their subs even further.

      At some point I will switch, $200 buys a lot of tokens on OpenRouter.

      • Sabinus3 hours ago
        Is the conventional wisdom that the subscription price/token is better than the API price/token not valid any more? Or is access to model diversity worth the increased per token costs?
      • kilroy1233 hours ago
        Same here. I'm switching to the Codex plan. It just doesn't go very far now. Especially if you use fable at all.
    • culi4 hours ago
      Use a unified proxy that lets you switch between models seamlessly. We are far from an equilibrium in this market and you will continue to have FOMO no matter who you pick if you go all in on one company
    • glub3 hours ago
      If anything, it's going to be more expensive. Price/performance ratio isn't there yet for frontier open weight models.

      But regardless, you definitely should use a harness where switching models on the fly is easy. There's a reason why Anthropic uses their own proprietary formats/conventions anywhere they can - to lock you in when inference eventually commoditizes.

    • colingauvin4 hours ago
      At least by API usage, they aren't yet lower cost than subscriptions. Not sure about GLM's subscription plans though.
      • glub3 hours ago
        GLM subscription is better than API, but significantly worse than Codex, even when used outside peak hours.
    • notatoad4 hours ago
      no, at subscription prices claude is a better value than GLM.

      They're only a better value if you're paying API rates

  • colingauvin4 hours ago
    Tied for #1 by agentic index (with Opus 5).
  • scosman2 hours ago
    And reminder: it's less than a quarter the size of Kimi K3!
  • colingauvin5 hours ago
    ...do I take out a double mortgage to buy a 4 Spark cluster?
    • nvme0n1p14 hours ago
      No, you use openrouter and spend 10% as much as using a proprietary model.
    • jtbaker2 hours ago
      Qwen3.8 27B doing a lot of lifting right now, and people seem to run it pretty well on 1-2x 3090 setups...
    • lisplist4 hours ago
      $20k is personal loan territory, not a second mortgage lol
  • fenestella4 hours ago
    [flagged]