Model Comparison
GLM-5.3 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5
GLM-5.3 Flash (max) leads Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) by 131 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 49 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GLM-5.3 Flash is #12 and Claude Haiku 5.5 is #16. Cost per script: $0.022 for GLM-5.3 Flash (max) and $0.103 for Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGLM-5.3 Flash
GLM-5.3 Flash (max)
Pick GLM-5.3 Flash (max) when the budget is a few cents a script, because at $0.022 it ranks above every Claude Haiku 5.5 setting.
PickClaude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) when you want stronger substance and a draft in 3.6 minutes, at $0.029 a script.
Every setting on this page costs about a dime or less, so this is a contest of quality for the money, and GLM-5.3 Flash wins it. GLM-5.3 Flash (max) costs $0.022 a script. Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) costs $0.103 and sits 131 Elo lower, and their 95% ranges don't overlap. So Haiku's best setting costs almost five times as much, takes more than twice as long, and still lands lower. Ranked by best setting, that's the #12 model of 78 against the #16 model. GLM's single setting ranks above all five Haiku settings, and to pay less than it you have to drop to Claude Haiku 5.5 (high), which is 417 Elo down. Haiku earns a lot from thinking, +505 Elo from low to max effort, and the last step counts: xhigh sits 82 Elo under max effort, with ranges just apart. At $0.029 and 3.6 minutes, xhigh is still where I'd stop. Haiku leads on substance and on the Slop Score, by about two to three points at its two top settings. GLM has the hook, about five points better than either. I'd start with GLM-5.3 Flash.
Disclosure: GLM-5.3 Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5 each come from the same lab as one of the judges (GLM 5.3 Flash and Claude Opus 5.5). Neither is scored by its own lab alone (how the panel works). The judge analysis measures how much each judge favors its own lab.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of GLM-5.3 Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLM-5.3 Flash (max) | 2140 | 2093 to 2186 | 81.8 | $0.022 | 5.2 min | 37,224 | #23 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | 2009 | 1972 to 2044 | 80.8 | $0.103 | 12.6 min | N/A | #31 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh) | 1927 | 1883 to 1965 | 80.0 | $0.029 | 3.6 min | N/A | #41 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (high) | 1723 | 1679 to 1760 | 78.0 | $0.012 | 1.5 min | N/A | #53 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (medium) | 1620 | 1572 to 1670 | 76.7 | $0.0067 | 0.8 min | N/A | #62 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 (low) | 1504 | 1461 to 1550 | 75.2 | $0.0045 | 0.5 min | N/A | #74 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included. N/A under Reasoning Tokens means the board has no separate reasoning count for that route.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. GLM-5.3 Flash (max) leads Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) by 131 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2093 to 2186 against 1972 to 2044), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every GLM-5.3 Flash Configuration Ranks Higher. GLM-5.3 Flash (max), the only GLM-5.3 Flash configuration on the board, ranks above all five Claude Haiku 5.5 configurations, including Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) at Elo 2009.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At max, the one level name both models use, GLM-5.3 Flash has the higher Writing Elo: 2140 against 2009. Their 95% ranges do not overlap there. Level names come from each provider, so the same name does not promise the same reasoning budget.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Haiku 5.5 moves +505 Elo from low to max effort, at about 23 times the cost per script.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
GLM-5.3 Flash (max) scores higher on five of the nine metrics and Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) on four. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, YouTube Best Practices does the most to put GLM-5.3 Flash (max) ahead, with a 4.1-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GLM-5.3 Flash (max) | Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.62 | 1.55 |
| Lowest script score | 80.3 Script 4 | 78.2 Script 10 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 82.6 Script 4 |
| Range across scripts | 3.5 | 4.4 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is GLM-5.3 Flash (max) minus Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GLM-5.3 Flash (max) | Claude Haiku 5.5 (max effort) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.1 | 80.3 | +0.8 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 81.5 | 80.7 | +0.8 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.0 | 80.8 | +0.2 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.3 | 82.6 | -2.3 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.1 | 81.7 | +0.4 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.9 | 81.1 | +1.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.5 | 80.0 | +3.5 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 80.8 | 81.3 | -0.5 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 81.5 | +2.3 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 81.2 | 78.2 | +3.0 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons