Celeris-1 vs GLM-5.3 (Low)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or GLM-5.3 (Low) by Z AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-5.3 (Low) scores 28.0 points higher (34.3 vs 6.3) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($1013 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.3 (Low) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | GLM-5.3 (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 34.3 | +444.4% GLM-5.3 (Low) is 5.4× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $1,012.50 | +1587.8% GLM-5.3 (Low) is 17× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 31.21s | +3487.4% GLM-5.3 (Low) is 3487.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $1.40 / $4.40 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
GLM-5.3 (Low) vs Celeris-1: 444.4% more intelligence, 1587.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 3487.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- GLM-5.3 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Celeris-1GLM-5.3 (Low)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/glm-5-3-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/glm-5-3-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill