Model Comparison
GLM-5.3 vs Claude Sonnet 5
GLM-5.3 (max) leads Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) by 361 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 279 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, GLM-5.3 is #7 and Claude Sonnet 5 is #23. Cost per script: $0.240 for GLM-5.3 (max) and $0.696 for Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickGLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 (max)
Pick GLM-5.3 (max) as your default script writer, since it leads eight of the nine metrics at $0.240, about a third of what Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) costs.
PickClaude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 (high)
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 (high) for a rough first draft you plan to rework, at $0.121 a script and under two minutes.
At their best settings, GLM-5.3 is the better writer and also the cheaper one. GLM-5.3 (max), its only setting on the board, sits 361 Elo above Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort), and the 95% ranges sit far apart, so the evidence for that order is strong. Ranked by those settings, GLM-5.3 is the #7 model of 78 and Claude Sonnet 5 the #23 model. GLM costs $0.240 a script and takes about six minutes. Sonnet at max effort costs nearly three times as much and takes twice as long. Sonnet's thinking levels don't close the gap: going from Claude Sonnet 5 (high) to max effort adds 207 Elo for almost six times the cost and still leaves it far below GLM. The difference I'd notice first is the hook, close to eight points in GLM's favor, and Sonnet's drafts also vary more from one run to the next. To be fair to Sonnet, at max effort it holds the requested length a little better, and its high setting is the cheapest and fastest row on this page. For the script itself, I'd run GLM.
Disclosure: GLM-5.3 and Claude Sonnet 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 and Claude Sonnet 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 (max) | 2220 | 2183 to 2259 | 82.4 | $0.240 | 6.1 min | 46,444 | #15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) | 1859 | 1812 to 1904 | 79.2 | $0.696 | 12.0 min | N/A | #45 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 (high) | 1652 | 1602 to 1703 | 76.6 | $0.121 | 1.9 min | N/A | #58 |
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 (max) leads Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) by 361 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2183 to 2259 against 1812 to 1904), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every GLM-5.3 Configuration Ranks Higher. GLM-5.3 (max), the only GLM-5.3 configuration on the board, ranks above both Claude Sonnet 5 configurations, including Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) at Elo 1859.
- Same Level Name, Side by Side. At max, the one level name both models use, GLM-5.3 has the higher Writing Elo: 2220 against 1859. 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 Sonnet 5 moves +207 Elo from high to max effort, at about 5.8 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 (max) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Tone & Voice Match does the most to put GLM-5.3 (max) ahead, with a 4.7-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| GLM-5.3 (max) | Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.39 | 2.39 |
| Lowest script score | 80.5 Script 10 | 75.7 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 84.1 Script 7 | 81.5 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 3.6 | 5.8 |
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 (max) minus Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | GLM-5.3 (max) | Claude Sonnet 5 (max effort) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 82.1 | 77.4 | +4.7 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.5 | 78.9 | +3.6 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.5 | 78.1 | +3.4 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 81.0 | 75.7 | +5.3 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 82.5 | 80.9 | +1.6 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 82.9 | 81.1 | +1.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 84.1 | 81.2 | +2.9 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.7 | 79.3 | +3.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 84.0 | 81.5 | +2.5 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.5 | 78.0 | +2.5 |
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