Tabbit
ResourcesBlogModels
Tabbit LogoTabbit

Tabbit — The AI Browser that Works for You

Topics

  • AI Browser Resources
  • Agentic Browser Resources
  • Browser Downloads and Install Guides
  • Browser Comparisons
  • AI Browser Alternatives
  • Browser Productivity Resources

Popular Guides

  • AI Browser
  • Agentic Browser Download
  • Best AI Browser 2026: Top 9 Tested & Ranked
  • AI Browser Download
  • Free AI Browser
  • Best AI Browser 2026
  • AI Browser Comparison 2026
  • AI Browser for Windows
  • AI Browser for Mac
  • Chrome Alternative 2026

Events

  • Tabbit Skill Competition
  • KPOP SBTI Fandom Personality Test
  • Tabbit Campus Creator Program
  • fifi's Picks: AI Skills for Research Papers
  • User Survey

About

  • Tabbit Blog
  • Press & Media
English
简体中文English
Reviews and evidence

GLM-5.3 · Media / benchmark · Platform telemetry

GLM-5.3: BenchLM's Source-Verifiable Benchmark Ledger and "Not Ranked" Conclusion

Exact-source rows trace provider numbers; without retesting they should not become an overall rank.

Unverified: the original source could not be rechecked. Historical figures below are not current verified results.

Media / benchmarkPlatform telemetryEdited 2026-09-20

Test conditions

Test and source boundary
2026-08-17 directory snapshot with 17 source-visible rows; rows point to Z.ai and were not rerun.
Model and version
GLM-5.3; do not merge with GLM-5.2, other models, other reasoning tiers, or other harnesses
Collection date
2026-08-18; the original page was not reopened this round, so dynamic facts remain unverified

Key data and applicable tasks

One-sentence takeaway

BenchLM lists 17 GLM-5.3 scores whose original sources can be displayed, but does not assign an overall score or rank because there is no independent retest. For now, it is better understood as a traceable ledger of provider-reported data than as an independent leaderboard.

Use cases

  • Suitable tasks: Checking GLM-5.3's published coding, Agent, and security benchmarks; quickly reviewing the source status of each number; and preparing a retest checklist for when the weights become available.

  • Unsuitable tasks: Treating the page's scores as an independent evaluation, an overall capability ranking, or the success rate of a real project.

  • Applicable model version: GLM-5.3 (the page labels it as released on 2026-08-14).

  • Applicable client, Agent, or API: Client-independent; the data comes from Z.AI's release table, and the model is currently available through Coding Plan/ZCode.

  • Recommended reasoning tier and parameters: BenchLM did not make any calls and did not publish parameters; the actual differences among low/high/max cannot be inferred from this data.

Test environment

  • Data source: The BenchLM model page; its methodology page says public tables default to showing only exact-source rows, excluding generated or inferred scores.

  • Data refresh time: 2026-08-17.

  • Record status: GLM-5.3 has 17 displayable benchmark records; the Agentic and Coding categories each contain 8 records, plus 1 External signals record. Reasoning, Knowledge, Math, Multilingual, Multimodal, and Instruction Following are all marked as not measured.

  • Independence: The page explicitly marks these rows as Provider exact, and every original link points back to a Z.AI release article; there are no independently run inputs, configurations, seeds, or per-run results.

Results

Coding / Agentic

BenchmarkGLM-5.3Page-recorded best verified comparisonEvidence status
Terminal-Bench 2.188.2%GLM-5.3's current best verified rowProvider exact
Terminal-Bench 3.028.3%GLM-5.3's current best verified rowProvider exact
DeepSWE v1.166.9%GPT-5.6 Sol 72.7%, trails by 5.8 percentage pointsProvider exact
NL2Repo58.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 61.5%, trails by 3.5 percentage pointsProvider exact
ProgramBench19.0%Claude Opus 5 93.0%, a 74-percentage-point gap on the pageProvider exact
FrontierSWE78.1%Kimi K3 81.2%, trails by 3.1 percentage pointsProvider exact
SWE-Marathon v1.142.5%GLM-5.3's current best verified rowProvider exact
PostTrainBench39.8%GLM-5.3's current best verified rowProvider exact
CyberGym84.5%Fugu Cyber 86.9%, trails by 2.4 percentage pointsProvider exact
ExploitGymPage-normalized value 15.0%GPT-5.6 Sol 33.7%, trails by 18.7 percentage pointsProvider exact
Toolathlon-Verified73.0%Claude Opus 5 80.6%, trails by 7.6 percentage pointsProvider exact
AutomationBench48.2%GLM-5.3's current best verified rowProvider exact
Agents' Last Exam28.5%Qwen3.8 Max 52.4%, trails by 23.9 percentage pointsProvider exact
HLE with tools62.5%Claude Opus 5 64.7%, trails by 2.2 percentage pointsProvider exact
ExploitBench54.0%Claude Mythos 5 78.0%, trails by 23.6 percentage pointsProvider exact

The BenchLM page also lists GDPval-AA v2 1769, but treats it as a provider-source record rather than an independently verified score; the page therefore remains at “Score pending / Not ranked.”

Conclusions

  1. Facts that can be confirmed: GLM-5.3's published numbers are concentrated mainly in terminal coding, long-running Agent, and vulnerability discovery/exploitation tests; BenchLM can link each number to the corresponding Z.AI original.

  2. Facts that cannot be confirmed: Whether these scores can be reproduced with other harnesses, inference stacks, budgets, model providers, or local weights; GLM-5.3's overall capability ranking; and whether the official token-efficiency claim translates into lower real-world task costs.

  3. Implications for selection: In BenchLM's data, GLM-5.3 looks more like a model with "substantial coding/Agent evidence but obvious gaps in general-capability evidence." The page has not measured multimodality, math, knowledge, or instruction following, so coding results should not be extrapolated into all-purpose performance.

  4. Boundary of the provider table: "Best verified row" only means the highest currently traceable source record in the directory; it does not mean BenchLM reran the benchmark and reproduced that score.

Limitations

  • All GLM-5.3 rows have an evidence status of Provider exact, and their original links point to Z.AI; this is not an independent controlled evaluation.

  • The page does not publish GLM-5.3's request inputs, tool schema, time budget, sampling parameters, rollout count, hardware, or per-run results.

  • ExploitGym is normalized to 15.0% in the directory, while the Z.AI release table presents the result as the number of tasks completed in 2 hours/6 hours (105/130); the two representations cannot be treated as directly equivalent. Check BenchLM's normalization definition before comparing them.

  • Page data will change as the model directory is updated; this article records only the 2026-08-17 snapshot.

Reproduction steps

  1. Open https://benchlm.ai/models/glm-5-3 and record the page's data date, the 17 source-displayable rows, and the “Score pending / Not ranked” status.

  2. Follow the Z.AI original link for each record and verify the benchmark name, GLM-5.3 number, and comparison table; do not treat Google snippets or third-party retellings as results.

  3. Open https://benchlm.ai/methodology and confirm that the directory includes only exact-source rows in its public table by default, then check the data refresh date.

  4. For a genuinely independent retest, wait for downloadable weights or a measurable API. Then repeat the same tasks under a fixed repository and tool harness, recording inputs, context, effort, time budget, tool calls, each success/failure, and tokens per completed task.

Original evidence and data

  • The BenchLM model page explicitly states that GLM-5.3 has 17 benchmark rows whose sources can be displayed, but no public overall score or rank; all category scores on the page are pending.

  • The BenchLM methodology explicitly states that public tables default to exact-source rows only, and that generated benchmark values are not included in the evidence table; the dataset refresh date is 2026-08-17.

  • The individual original-source links for GLM-5.3 point back to the Z.AI release article https://z.ai/blog/glm-5.3; this article therefore treats BenchLM as a traceable directory, not a second independent scoring party.

Source excerpts or observations (for compliance short quotes only)

“GLM-5.3 is tracked, but not publicly ranked yet.”

“Public BenchLM benchmark tables default to exact-source rows only.”

What this supports

  • Exact-source rows trace provider numbers; without retesting they should not become an overall rank. under the stated source conditions only.

What this does not support

  • Does not support treating rows pointing to Z.ai as independent BenchLM retests or a current ranking.

Method, limits, and reproduction

The figures, task set, reasoning tier, and client conditions apply only to the listed source and collection snapshot. Different versions, harnesses, or providers must not be compared directly; undisclosed parameters remain unknown.

For a reproduction, fix the model version, provider or client, reasoning tier, tools, task-set version, sample count, and collection date, and record failures, retries, and human corrections. Full steps are in the source notes below.

Original source

BenchLM (third-party model benchmark directory) · BenchLM editorial/data team (byline not disclosed) · Original publication date 2026-08-17 · Site edit date 2026-09-20

Open original source

GLM-5.3

Compare GLM-5.3 in Tabbit

Download the Tabbit client to check model access

Read the full analysis

Overview · English

GLM-5.3 Explained: What Changed from GLM-5.2

GLM-5.3 keeps the GLM-5.2 base but adds post-training for longer coding and agent tasks. Compare the changes, access paths, costs, and open risks.

Related reviews

GLM-5.3 Kept the Same Base Model—Where Did Its Coding Gains Come From? An In-Depth Look at Post-Training (The New Stack)The media analysis explains post-training, environments, and verifier claims; it is not a third-party audit.Reddit AIToolsPerformance: GLM-5.3 Release Table Breakdown and Local Self-Test ChecklistThe community author separates provider claims into strengths, gaps, and retest tasks; use it to plan validation, not conclude performance.GLM-5.3 Review: Advanced Cybersecurity Capabilities and Coding Gains (VentureBeat)Separate cyber, coding, and migration claims in the launch-day report; vendor scores are not independent retests.Z.ai Official Technical Blog: Frontier Coding and Emergent Cybersecurity Capabilities (Z.ai)The official release supports launch claims and conditional benchmark records, not a universal first-place conclusion.Build staged coding tasks with explicit contextTurn project context, goals, constraints, and acceptance criteria into a staged coding task.Plan before editing in ZCodeIn ZCode, inspect the project and approve a plan before using a small task to verify the edit-and-test loop.Separate API, benchmarks, and weight statusSeparate API, Coding Plan, benchmark conditions, and weight status instead of presenting an open-weight promise as a download.Watch cache and context use in ZCodeUse ZCode cache-hit and context breakdown signals to watch quota use before continuing a long coding task.