Qwen: Qwen3.8 Omni Flash vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 FlashX
Side-by-side comparison of specs, pricing, benchmark scores, and task rankings. Updated 2026-10-13.
| Qwen: Qwen3.8 Omni Flash | Z.ai: GLM 5.3 FlashX | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | qwen | z-ai |
| Quality Score | 100 | 100 |
| Input Price | $0.15/M | $0.37/M |
| Output Price | $0.47/M | $1.25/M |
| Context Window | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Max Output | 131,072 | 131,072 |
| Tool Calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured Output | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reasoning Mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audio | ✓ | - |
The verdict
For a sample job of 1 million input tokens and 250,000 output tokens, Qwen3.8 Omni Flash costs $0.27 and GLM 5.3 FlashX costs $0.68, so Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is about 2.6 times cheaper for the same work.
Both take in a similar amount of text: 1,000,000 and 1,048,576 tokens, about 1,500 and 1,573 pages.
Only Qwen3.8 Omni Flash offers audio input.
Across the 10 tasks where they differ, Qwen3.8 Omni Flash scores higher on 10 (SQL Generation, Code Completion, Code Documentation and others).
Pick Qwen3.8 Omni Flash if you need lower cost, audio input or the stronger all-round task scores.
Costs use current list prices per million tokens; page counts assume about 0.75 words per token and 500 words per page.
Who wins by task?
| Task | Qwen: Qwen3.8 Omni Flash | Z.ai: GLM 5.3 FlashX |
|---|---|---|
| SQL Generation | 133 | 133 |
| Code Completion | 131 | 131 |
| Code Documentation | 131 | 131 |
| Regex Writing | 119 | 119 |
| CSV / Spreadsheet Cleanup | 133 | 133 |
| JSON Extraction | 131 | 131 |
| Bulk Data Labeling | 129 | 129 |
| Long-Document Summarization | 137 | 137 |
| Short-Form Summarization | 123 | 123 |
| Blog Post Writing | 121 | 121 |
Scores reflect capability match + benchmark data + pricing for each task. Methodology →