Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) by Anthropic or GLM-5.3-Flash 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-Flash scores 12.3 points higher (41.8 vs 29.5) but costs 8.9× as much to run the benchmark ($306 vs $34.3; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.3-Flash when you need intelligence above 29.5, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) when 29.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) | GLM-5.3-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.5 | 41.8 | +41.7% GLM-5.3-Flash is 41.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $34.31 | $305.52 | +790.5% GLM-5.3-Flash is 8.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.19s | 39.33s | +286.0% GLM-5.3-Flash is 286.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.15 / $0.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low): 41.7% more intelligence, 790.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 286.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low)GLM-5.3-FlashToday'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/claude-haiku-5-5-low/glm-5-3-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-low/glm-5-3-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill