alt Hacker NewsI like to compare models with a similar score on cost per task and output tokens per task since those measure two things I'm interested in: cost efficiency and token efficiency. Here's how GLM-5.3 compares to other models in a similar score and against GLM-5.2 to save a few clicks for others who care about these metrics:
Model Score Cost / Task Output Tokens / Task
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLM-5.3 (max) 59.5 $0.68 41,107
GLM-5.2 (max) 53.0 $0.56 32,200
Claude Opus 5 (high) 61.5 $1.52 21,353
GPT-5.6 Sol (max) 60.9 $1.23 16,879
Grok 4.6 (high) 60.9 $0.84 21,735
Kimi K3 (max) 59.7 $0.84 25,474
GPT-5.6 Sol (xhigh) 59.0 $0.87 11,098
Claude Opus 5 (medium) 58.6 $0.98 12,459
Qwen3.8 Max 58.1 $1.13 38,287
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 57.7 $0.95 32,472
Claude Opus 4.8 (max) 57.3 $1.65 33,557
GPT-5.6 Sol (high) 57.3 $0.52 7,545
Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) 56.8 $0.40 30,430
GPT-5.6 Terra (max) 56.6 $0.51 20,838
GPT-5.5 (xhigh) 56.3 $0.69 16,893
Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) 56.0 $0.40 36,847
Replies
It would make reading and comparing a bit easier if the data was sorted by a dimension.
this is not very useful.
for over 1 billion real world users living in China, they don't have the option of paying $1.52 per task to use Opus 5, they are banned doing that due to US politics.
these $/task figures aren't very useful in my experience. it doesn't tell you how well it did the task.
generally I choose models by their intelligence and then personal preference from direct experience.
Muse Spark has a nice balance. not to mentions the Contribs version is old deepseek flash prices.