Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
GLM-5.3 B
Best for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an open coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, or agents that call it through Z.ai or a hosted provider
Ahead on
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Agent interface, 70 against 60
Watch for
Z.ai's smallest build is 755.6 GB in FP8, with no local Ollama or LM Studio build
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Reach, 60 against 55
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Agent interface GLM-5.3 +10
GLM-5.3 70
A Jinja chat template sits in the repository, for 20. The tool-calling format is 10, since it is defined only by the template and the glm47 parser is named by vLLM and SGLang rather than by Z.ai. The template takes several calls in one turn, for 20. Structured output is 0, with nothing on the card and JSON documented only for the hosted API. Reasoning control is 10, a per-request budget through reasoning_effort with the reasoning in a think block, though thinking can't be turned off. Context is 10, 1,048,576 tokens native with no rope scaling.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
Reach Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +5
GLM-5.3 55
Memory earns nothing, since Z.ai's smallest build is the 755.6 GB FP8 one, about 907 GB with the fifth added, and Ollama only lists a cloud entry. Four runtimes run it in a released version, llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers, for 20, while Ollama and LM Studio have no local build. Z.ai publishes one quantised build, FP8, for 10, since the BF16 repository is the full precision. The GLM-5.3 License is a custom licence that is free for commercial use below a revenue threshold, for 10. The files download with no account or gate, for 10, and Z.ai's own API plus eight live providers on Hugging Face serve it, for 5.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
Risk GLM-5.3 +5
GLM-5.3 50
File safety is full, with safetensors only, no Python in the repository and no remote code needed in Transformers 5.12.0 or later. Provenance is full, files in the zai-org organisation Z.ai links to with a SHA-256 for every shard. Safety evaluation is 0, because the blog mentions safety evaluation and hardening but publishes no results, and agent guidance is 0, with nothing on refusals, prompt injection or cautions. Licence risk is 10, losing 5 for the security review that model-as-a-service operators above US$10 billion of revenue must pass. The security programme is 0, with no security.txt, no SECURITY.md and no advisories.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-5.3 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 55 | 60 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 45 | GLM-5.3 +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 60 | GLM-5.3 +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 58 | 56 | GLM-5.3 +2 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 64.6/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-5.3 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | GLM-5.3 License (MIT-style, with a security review for the largest model-as-a-service operators) | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-10-15 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
GLM-5.3
A large coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, several tool calls per turn and three reasoning budgets. Z.ai's smallest build is 756 GB in FP8, so it needs an 8-GPU server, Z.ai's API or a provider. The main risks are no published safety work, no way to report a flaw, and thinking that can't be turned off.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no safety results.
Before you call either
GLM-5.3
- Start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-5.3 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --tensor-parallel-size 8 --speculative-config.method mtp --speculative-config.num_speculative_tokens 5 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm47 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-5.3(vLLM 0.28.0 or later, 8xH200 or 8xH20 per vLLM's recipe) - Use the glm47 tool-call and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang; SGLang's cookbook says glm45 leaves the calls as plain text
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"reasoning_effort": "low"}for short tasks; anything other than low or high falls back to max - Pass
clear_thinking: truein chat use, since the template keeps earlier reasoning by default - Don't send
enable_thinking: false; the template ignores it and always opens a think block - Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output is documented only for Z.ai's hosted API
- No Z.ai build fits a 128 GB machine; the full 1M context needs 8xB200 per vLLM's recipe
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, GLM-5.3 or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on reach.
Other comparisons with GLM-5.3 or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-5.3
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-5.3
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs GLM-5.3
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-5.3
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs GLM-5.3
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-5.3
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-5.3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-5.3 vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-5.3 vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Granite 4.2 8B
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3 vs Inkling
- GLM-5.3 vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-5.3 vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-5.3 vs Kimi K3
- GLM-5.3 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- GLM-5.3 vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3 vs Kronos
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-5.3 vs LBS-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs Mistral Large 4
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-5.3 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-5.3 vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-5.3 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-5.3 vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-5.3 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/glm-5-3-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-5-3.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-5-3 ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-5-3", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key