GLM-5.3-Flash vs Mercury 2.5
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.3-Flash by Z AI or Mercury 2.5 by Inception? 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 29.5 points higher (41.8 vs 12.3) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($306 vs $218; both mid-range class). Pick GLM-5.3-Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Mercury 2.5.
| Metric | GLM-5.3-Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.8 | 12.3 | −70.6% Mercury 2.5 is 70.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $305.52 | $218.11 | −28.6% Mercury 2.5 is 28.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 39.33s | 4.39s | −88.8% Mercury 2.5 is 88.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.15 / $0.50 | $0.25 / $0.75 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash: 70.6% less intelligence, 28.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 88.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.3-Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Mercury 2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
GLM-5.3-FlashMercury 2.5Today'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/glm-5-3-flash/mercury-2-5 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-3-flash/mercury-2-5?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill