GLM-5.3 (Max) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.3 (Max) by Z AI or Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) by Alibaba? 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 11.1 points higher (44.8 vs 33.7) but costs 1.9× as much to run the benchmark ($2503 vs $1336; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick GLM-5.3 (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh).
| Metric | GLM-5.3 (Max) | Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 44.8 | 33.7 | −24.8% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 24.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,503.48 | $1,336.09 | −46.6% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 46.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 28.28s | 58.77s | +107.8% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 107.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) vs GLM-5.3 (Max): 24.8% less intelligence, 46.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 107.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- 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.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
GLM-5.3 (Max)Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)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/glm-5-3/qwen3-8-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-3/qwen3-8-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill