Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
GLM-5.3-Flash scores 65.1 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on reach, risk, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 3023 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best 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
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
Z.ai's smallest build is 328.4 GB in FP8, and no Ollama or LM Studio local build exists
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Reach, 75 against 60
- Risk, 60 against 55
- Agent interface, 90 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 58
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.8 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-5.3-Flash | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 75 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 60 | Recursive Flint +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 90 | Recursive Flint +20 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 58 | 67 | Recursive Flint +9 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 65.1/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-5.3-Flash | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai | Recursive |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-08-26 | 2026-10-21 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | 3.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
GLM-5.3-Flash
An MIT-licensed multimodal agent and coding model with a 1M-token context and several tool calls per turn, served by vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp and Transformers. Z.ai's smallest build is 328 GB in FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The main risk is that nothing on safety or prompt injection is published and there is no way to report a flaw.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
Before you call either
GLM-5.3-Flash
- Start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-5.3-Flash --tensor-parallel-size 4 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm47(vLLM 0.32.0 or later, about 386 GB of GPU memory per vLLM's recipe) - Use the glm47 tool-call and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang; calls come back as tool_call blocks with arg_key and arg_value pairs
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"reasoning_effort": "low"}for short tasks; anything other than low or high falls back to max - Don't rely on
thinking: falsefrom SGLang's cookbook, since the template has no such switch and always opens a think block - Set
clear_thinking: truein chat use, since the default keeps earlier reasoning in the prompt - On a 128 GB machine only third-party low-bit builds come near fitting, none of them from Z.ai
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, GLM-5.3-Flash or Recursive Flint?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores 65.1 (B) on agent readiness against Recursive Flint's 61 (C), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. Recursive Flint leads on reach, risk, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with GLM-5.3-Flash or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kimi K3
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/glm-5-3-flash-vs-recursive-flint.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-5-3-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-5-3-flash recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-5-3-flash", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key