Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetvsGLM 5.3 Flash
Updated Aug 2026

Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetvsGLM 5.3 Flash

GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper than Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet at $0.15/M vs $6/M input tokens.

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and GLM 5.3 Flash compared across 15 shared prompts
SpecClaude 3.7 Thinking SonnetGLM 5.3 Flash
Input price$6/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Output price$30/M tokens$0.5/M tokens
Context window200K tokens1.3M tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedFeb 2025Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 15 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet632 words
How Large Language Models Work: Three Tailored Explanations For an Experienced Software Engineer What makes LLMs fascinating from a systems perspective is that they're essentially massive distributed computing graphs that learn to compress and reconstitute information through backpropagation.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,276 words
The Experienced Software Engineer You know how a load balancer routes requests, how a cache stores frequently-accessed data, how a database index lets you find a needle without scanning the haystack? An LLM is a fundamentally different kind of system: it's a learned lookup, not a designed one.
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet290 words
HarborTech Services LBO Underwriting Year-by-Year Financial Model (FY2026-2030) Metric ($M) FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972.0 $1,040.0 $1,102.4 $1,157.6 $1,215.5 EBITDA $136.1 $156.0 $176.4 $191.0 $206.6 Cash Interest - Term Loan $43.2 $41.0 $37.6 $32.8 $26.8 Cash Interest - Mezzanine $21.6 $22.0 $22.5…
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash518 words
HarborTech Services — 5-Year LBO Summary Entry Math EV = 12.0x × $120m = $1,440.0m; Fees (2%) = $28.8m; Total uses = $1,468.8m Debt: TL = 4.0x × 120 = $480.0m; Mezz = 1.5x × 120 = $180.0m; Total = $660.0m (5.5x) Sponsor equity = $808.8m Base Case Projection ($m) FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 Revenue 972.0 1,039.7 1,102.1…
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet1,727 words
Comprehensive 3-Month Longevity Optimization Protocol Initial Assessment Phase (Week 0) Establish your baseline with these measurements before beginning: Blood Panel: Complete metabolic panel, lipid profile, inflammatory markers (hsCRP, IL-6), hormones (testosterone, estrogen, DHEA, cortisol), fasting glucose, HbA1c…
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,294 words
90-Day Longevity Optimization Protocol ⚠️ Medical disclaimer: This is an educational framework, not medical advice. Before starting, complete baseline labs and consult a physician—especially before fasting, supplements (rapamycin off-label use, high-dose anything), or if you have any health conditions.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet843 words
48-Hour Action Plan: CEO Response to Drug Safety Crisis Day 1 Hours 1-3: Immediate Assessment & Response Team Assembly I'll immediately convene an emergency meeting with our internal research team, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, and head of Pharmacovigilance to fully understand the liver failure…
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,321 words
48-Hour Action Plan: Liver Failure Signal in Flagship Drug Guiding Principle First The side effect is real, the drug is in 4 million patients, and roughly 500 patients per year may develop liver failure (4M ÷ 8,000). Every day of delay is measured in preventable liver transplants and deaths.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet755 words
The Transistor in 1920: An Alternate Technological Timeline Early Development (1920-1939) Initial Phase (1920-1929) If invented in 1920, transistors would initially be a laboratory curiosity.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,314 words
Counterfactual: The Transistor in 1920 Preliminary Framing A 1920 transistor presumes vacuum-tube-era physics knowledge outpacing reality—quantum mechanics wasn't mature until 1926–28, so a working device would likely be an empirical oddity (like the actual point-contact transistor) imperfectly understood.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet616 words
Collaborative Document Editor: Architecture Review Failure Modes Analysis WebSocket Connection Failures Issue: Client connections can fail due to network issues or server restarts, causing lost updates.
Read the full answer
GLM 5.3 Flash1,516 words
Architecture Review: Collaborative Document Editor This architecture has several critical flaws that would break the core product promise (real-time collaboration). Let me work through them by severity.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetRunner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GLM 5.3 Flash has the edge: newer, bigger context window.

GLM 5.3 Flash costs 60x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
Input
$6.00
Output
$30.00
GLM 5.3 Flash
Input
$0.15
40× cheaper
Output
$0.50
60× cheaper

GLM 5.3 Flash is cheaper on both: 40× input, 60× output.

Where to run it

29 hosts, cheapest first

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

GLM 5.3 Flash29 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDeepInfrafp4$0.07 in·$0.25 out·1M·99% upIInferenceNetfp4$0.09 in·$0.28 out·1M·97.8% upGGMI Cloudfp8$0.09 in·$0.30 out·1M·99.2% upWWafer$0.10 in·$0.35 out·1M·99.8% upRRelace$0.10 in·$0.36 out·1M·99.8% upOOpenInferencefp4$0.10 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.1% up
23 more hostsFewer hosts
PPhalafp8$0.13 in·$0.42 out·1M·99.6% upNNovitafp8$0.13 in·$0.44 out·1M·99.5% upSStreamLakefp8$0.14 in·$0.47 out·1M·99.1% upAAtlasCloudfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.5% upBBasetenfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.8% upCCoreWeavenvfp4$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.6% upCCrusoefp4$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·93.1% upDDigitalOcean$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·95.1% upFFireworks$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99% upFFriendli$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.5% upIInceptronfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.5% upIio.netfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·262k·99.1% upNNear AIfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.1% upPParasailfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·98.6% upRRekafp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·262k·98.9% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.7% upTTogether$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99.6% upVVenice$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·99% upZ.aifp8$0.15 in·$0.50 out·1M·96.4% upNNextBitfp8$0.18 in·$0.60 out·1M·97.9% upModalfp8$0.45 in·$1.50 out·1M·99.6% upMMorphdegraded$0.08 in·$0.28 out·1M·96.8% upCloudflare Workers AIdegraded$0.30 in·$1.00 out·1.3M·99.6% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet is developed by Anthropic while GLM 5.3 Flash is developed by Zhipu AI. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet has a 200K token context window vs GLM 5.3 Flash's 1.3M. You can compare their actual outputs across 15 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and GLM 5.3 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 15 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet costs $6/M input tokens and GLM 5.3 Flash costs $0.15/M input tokens. GLM 5.3 Flash is $5.85/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and GLM 5.3 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoHy3 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoGLM 5.3 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
GLM 5.3 Flash logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoClaude 3.7 Sonnet logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude 3.7 SonnetVersion compare
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude Opus 4.6Version compare
GLM 5.3 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5.3Same lab
GLM 5.3 Flash logoGLM 5.3 FlashX logo
GLM 5.3 Flash vs GLM 5.3 FlashXSame lab
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoQwen3.6 27B logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Qwen3.6 27BNew provider
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoQwen3.6 35B A3B logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Qwen3.6 35B A3BNew provider
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoQwen3.6 Flash logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Qwen3.6 FlashNew provider
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoQwen3.6 Max Preview logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Qwen3.6 Max PreviewNew provider

Model pages

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet59 outputs, specs and price
GLM 5.3 Flash logo
GLM 5.3 Flash15 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed