DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs GLM-5.3 (Max)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek or GLM-5.3 (Max) by Z AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-5.3 (Max) scores 33.4 points higher (44.8 vs 11.4) but costs 5.4× as much to run the benchmark ($2503 vs $461; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.3 (Max) when you need intelligence above 11.4, and DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) when 11.4 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | GLM-5.3 (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.4 | 44.8 | +293.0% GLM-5.3 (Max) is 3.9× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $460.74 | $2,503.48 | +443.4% GLM-5.3 (Max) is 5.4× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 20.16s | 28.73s | +42.5% GLM-5.3 (Max) is 42.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $4.00 | $1.40 / $4.40 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
GLM-5.3 (Max) vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25): 293.0% more intelligence, 443.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 42.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- GLM-5.3 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)GLM-5.3 (Max)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/deepseek-r1-0120/glm-5-3 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-r1-0120/glm-5-3?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill