// head_to_head
GPT-5.4 Nano vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
GLM 5.3 Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
GPT-5.4 Nano does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
openai
GPT-5.4 Nano
- Blended / 1M
- $0.463
- Context
- 400K
- Released
- Mar 17, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
z-ai
GLM 5.3 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.053
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Aug 26, 2026
- Overall score
- 62.1
Specs and pricing
| Metric | GPT-5.4 Nano | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 62.1 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0018 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.463 | $0.053win |
| Input price / 1M | $0.200 | $0.046win |
| Output price / 1M | $1.25 | $0.074win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.020win | $0.030 |
| Context window | 400K | 1.0Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 128K | 131K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — GPT-5.4 Nano on top, GLM 5.3 Flash below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | GPT-5.4 Nano | GLM 5.3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $135.04/mo | $15.82/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $163.00/mo | $34.90/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $159.20/mo | $33.78/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $284.75/mo | $50.92/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $535.00/mo | $114.77/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
GLM 5.3 Flash
Wider context window — 1.0M against 400K.
GPT-5.4 Nano vs GLM 5.3 Flash FAQ
Which is better, GPT-5.4 Nano or GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. GPT-5.4 Nano does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is GPT-5.4 Nano cheaper than GLM 5.3 Flash?
GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, GPT-5.4 Nano lists at $0.463 per million tokens and GLM 5.3 Flash at $0.053 — GLM 5.3 Flash is 8.7× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — GPT-5.4 Nano charges $0.200 in and $1.25 out, GLM 5.3 Flash charges $0.046 and $0.074 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does GPT-5.4 Nano or GLM 5.3 Flash have a bigger context window?
GLM 5.3 Flash has the larger context window: 400K for GPT-5.4 Nano against 1.0M for GLM 5.3 Flash. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do GPT-5.4 Nano and GLM 5.3 Flash support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.020 per million for GPT-5.4 Nano and $0.030 for GLM 5.3 Flash, against full input rates of $0.200 and $0.046. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.