# GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kronos (slim)

> GLM-5.3-Flash scores 65.1 (B) to Kronos's 55.2 (C) for open-weight models you run yourself. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-5-3-flash-vs-kronos.md (~6,050 tokens) · this version ~430 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-5-3-flash-vs-kronos.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/glm-5-3-flash-vs-kronos
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-25
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

GLM-5.3-Flash scores 65.1 (B) on agent readiness against Kronos's 55.2 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- GLM-5.3-Flash: B 65.1, rank #17 of 110 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/glm-5-3-flash.min.md
- Kronos: C 55.2, rank #86 of 110 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/kronos.min.md
- GLM-5.3-Flash, good for Teams with a multi-GPU server who want an MIT-licensed multimodal agent model with a 1M-token context, or agents that call it through a hosted provider Ahead on Reach, 60 against 55; Risk, 55 against 50; Agent interface, 70 against 60.
- Kronos, good for Agents that need a quick local forecast or synthetic sample of a candlestick series on modest hardware, for research or as one input among others.

| Category | GLM-5.3-Flash | Kronos |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 60 | 55 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 50 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 70 | 60 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 58 | 61 |

| Fact (where they differ) | GLM-5.3-Flash | Kronos |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Z.ai | Yu Shi (shiyu-coder, NeoQuasar), Tsinghua University |
| Last release | 2026-08-26 | 2026-04-13 |
| Popularity | none | 43k stars |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |