GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B rates 69 points higher; the 95% intervals do not overlap.
Rating
- GLM 5.3 Flash922±25
- Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B991±24
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B rates 69 points higher; the 95% intervals do not overlap.
| GLM 5.3 Flash | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | |
|---|---|---|
| Leaderboard rank | 19 of 19 | 11 of 19 |
| Win rate | 25.0% | 37.4% |
| Completion | 63.1% | 76.8% |
| Speed | 5.4 min | 4.3 min |
| Recovery | 77.3%63–87%, n = 44 | 74.0%69–78%, n = 342 |
| Cost per completion | $0.13 | $1.71 |
| Phone rank | 14 of 17 | 11 of 17 |
Under Recovery, its 95% interval and n, in failed actions. Last updated .
In eligible head-to-head comparisons, GLM 5.3 Flash has a 9.5% decisive win rate and Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B has 57.1%. 33.3% end without a decisive preference. This matchup is provisional; the evidence is limited.
No. Completion for GLM 5.3 Flash and Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B records whether the agent reported finishing. Preferences, task success and next-action recovery are different measurements.
Read speed and estimated cost alongside completion and preference. An early failure can be fast. Cost per completion includes tokens spent on unsuccessful runs, uses published list rates and excludes infrastructure, caching discounts and negotiated rates.
Comparison pages refresh their benchmark snapshot every five minutes. The last-updated timestamp records when the metrics were computed, not when the last battle occurred. Model rank may move between snapshots.