GLM-5.3 (Low) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.3 (Low) by Z AI or Granite 4.2 3B by IBM? 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 (Low) scores 25.2 points higher (34.3 vs 9.1) but costs 68× as much to run the benchmark ($1013 vs $14.9; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.3 (Low) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.3 (Low) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.3 | 9.1 | −73.5% Granite 4.2 3B is 73.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,012.50 | $14.91 | −98.5% Granite 4.2 3B is 98.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 31.07s | 49.98s | +60.9% Granite 4.2 3B is 60.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs GLM-5.3 (Low): 73.5% less intelligence, 98.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 60.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.3 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Granite 4.2 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
GLM-5.3 (Low)Granite 4.2 3BToday'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-low/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-3-low/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill