Back to Text & reasoning

Model comparison

Mistral Medium 3.5 vs GLM-5.3

Compare Mistral Medium 3.5 and GLM-5.3 using the same provider-sourced text & reasoning rubric. No mystery score and no invented benchmark ranking.

Facts checked September 4, 2026

Estimate your cost

Set your usage. Your estimate updates as you type.

Example: 6,000 input tokens for 10 pages, plus a 500-token summary. Page lengths vary; adjust the numbers below.

One run sends your input to the model once and receives an answer. Tokens are pieces of text: input is what you send, output is the answer you receive.

Advanced options
How this estimate works

Estimates exclude taxes, tools, cache storage/writes, free allowances and custom discounts. Image estimates cover output only, not prompt or reference-image charges. Quality modes differ by model. Unlisted settings are not treated as free.

Estimate your cost
ModelEstimated total (USD)
GLM-5.3Z.aiNo reviewed rate
Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral AINo reviewed rate

Quick take

Mistral Medium 3.5

Mistral's open-weight frontier model for demanding multimodal, coding, reasoning, and agent workflows, with a 256K context window.

Best for

  • Complex coding and agent workflows
  • Multimodal document and image reasoning
  • Organizations choosing between hosted and controlled deployment

Watch out for

The headline token price applies to Mistral's standard hosted endpoint. Regional inference costs more, and self-hosting shifts the bill to GPUs, operations, and support.

GLM-5.3

Z.ai's open-weight long-context reasoning model for coding, tools, and agentic work across self-hosted and managed routes.

Best for

  • Long-context coding agents
  • Open-weight enterprise experiments
  • Teams that want several inference-provider choices

Watch out for

Compare the exact checkpoint and host, not just the model name. Context, maximum output, speed, price, logging, and reasoning controls can all change by route.

Compare the published facts

Mistral Medium 3.5 vs GLM-5.3

Values use each provider's own published units and limits. A blank means the provider did not publish a directly comparable value in the sources reviewed.

Text & reasoningMistral Medium 3.5GLM-5.3
Context windowMaximum combined prompt and working context documented by the provider.256K tokens combinedUp to 1.31M on OpenRouter; 1M on QwenCloud
Maximum outputProvider-published response limit, where available.Not separately publishedUp to 262,144 tokens on OpenRouter
Knowledge cutoffLatest reliable knowledge date explicitly published by the model provider. Search and connected tools can retrieve newer information but do not change the model's built-in cutoff.Not publishedNot published
Input priceCurrent standard list price per million input tokens unless noted.$1.50 / 1MFrom $1.15 / 1M on OpenRouter
Output priceCurrent standard list price per million output tokens unless noted.$7.50 / 1MFrom $3.50 / 1M on OpenRouter
InputsMedia types accepted by the listed model endpoint.Text, imageText
Tools & agentsSelected native tools and agent-building capabilities, not an exhaustive list.Functions, agents, built-in tools, structured and predicted outputsTools, structured outputs, controllable reasoning on supported routes

How to choose

Compare the job, not the hype.

Start with the job you need to complete, then validate cost, access, and policy details on your exact provider route.

Mistral Medium 3.5

Mistral's commercial terms exclude model training by default except when a customer opts in or uses designated Labs or preview models. Standard API input and output retention is generally 30 rolling days for abuse monitoring unless zero data retention is enabled.

GLM-5.3

Self-hosted weights keep prompts inside infrastructure you control. QwenCloud says it does not retain API inputs or outputs for training; OpenRouter and other providers apply their own route policies.

Frequently asked questions

Mistral Medium 3.5 vs GLM-5.3 FAQ

What is the main difference between Mistral Medium 3.5 and GLM-5.3?

Mistral Medium 3.5: Mistral's open-weight frontier model for demanding multimodal, coding, reasoning, and agent workflows, with a 256K context window. GLM-5.3: Z.ai's open-weight long-context reasoning model for coding, tools, and agentic work across self-hosted and managed routes.

Should I choose Mistral Medium 3.5 or GLM-5.3?

Consider Mistral Medium 3.5 when your priority is Complex coding and agent workflows. Consider GLM-5.3 when your priority is Long-context coding agents. Test both with your own data and provider route before committing.

Is this Mistral Medium 3.5 vs GLM-5.3 comparison based on Cody benchmarks?

No. This comparison aligns provider-published facts for the Text & reasoning category. It does not claim a universal winner or combine incompatible third-party benchmark scores.