GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max
何時用哪一個
兩者皆為長上下文文本模型，具備 131072 token 最大輸出，且快取讀取價格幾乎相同（$0.26 對 $0.25），因此真正的差異在於模態與價格：glm-5.3 僅接受文本，成本為輸入 $1.4 / 輸出 $4.4，而 qwen3.8-max 為輸入 $2 / 輸出 $6，在輸入與輸出皆便宜約 1.4x。當您的輸入包含圖像時，請選擇 qwen3.8-max，因為它接受文本與圖像，而 glm-5.3 僅接受文本。若需以較低成本進行純文本推理、工具與程式碼任務，請選擇 glm-5.3，其具備稍大的 1000000 token 視窗（相較於 983616），但請留意其思考模式無法停用。
Benchmark 成績
雙方都被測過的 13 項。
廠商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| GLM-5.3 | Qwen3.8 Max | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $1.4 | $2 | 0.7× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $4.4 | $6 | 0.73× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.26 | $0.25 | 1× |
| 快取寫入 | - | 1.25x | - |
費率取自建置時的即時目錄；各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。
它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下，所有 67 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格（對數尺度）
能力
| GLM-5.3 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 常駐開啟 | 是 —— 廠商未公布調節參數 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示快取 | 隱式（自動） | 隱式 + 顯式 |
| 快取生命週期 | 未公開 | explicit: 5m, reset on hit |
| 最小快取前綴 | 未公開 | 1024 個 token |
規格
| GLM-5.3 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 | 文字 影像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | - | 2026-08-03 |
| 上下文視窗 | 1M | 984K |
| 最大輸出 | 131K | 131K |
| 思考參數 | reasoning_effort | - |
| 可接受的值 | reasoning_effort
| - |
| 預設值 | max | - |
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件；供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略，而非自行推測。 完整來源： GLM-5.3 · Qwen3.8 Max
單一提示詞，兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
GLM-5.3 通過 · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating an extensive internal chain-of-thought—thousands of hidden "thinking" tokens the user never sees—before writing any part of the actual answer. Those invisible tokens are billed at output rates, which run several times the price of input tokens, so the billed volume per query jumped even though query volume and per-token pricing stayed the same. The good news is this is a controllable lever, not a rate increase: capping reasoning effort and routing only complex queries to reasoning mode should bring a large share of the added cost back down.
輸出 681 tok (+562 思考) 延遲 18.4 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model produce additional hidden steps before responding, and those tokens are billable. It also tends to lengthen each interaction because the model works through more possibilities before settling on an answer. Therefore, the bill doubled mainly due to higher compute and token usage per request, not necessarily because the number of requests doubled.
輸出 378 tok (+305 思考) 延遲 8.6 s
指令遵循（恰好三句，可數）、受眾適配（面向 CFO 的語氣），以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。
GLM-5.3 通過 · 8/8 cases
**Fixed:** ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **The bug:** The function suffers from a unit error — it counts adjacent equal *pairs* rather than *items* in a run. `cur` is seeded at 0, gains 1 per match, and resets to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of k equal elements can only ever drive `cur` to k−1 (a run of k items contains exactly k−1 neighboring pairs), and `best`, also starting at 0, inherits that shortfall. That's why a single-element input — a run of length 1 containing zero pairs — returns 0 instead of 1, and why a run reaching the last index comes back one short (e.g. […]
輸出 9934 tok (+9438 思考) 延遲 150.7 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that the original code starts `best` and `cur` at `0`, so it counts adjacent equal *transitions* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal-neighbor transitions, so single-element inputs return `0`, and runs that reach the end are undercounted by one. Initializing the current run to `1` for the first element, resetting it to `1` on a break, and updating `best` from that count fixes the off-by-one.
輸出 1616 tok (+1411 思考) 延遲 34.7 s
修復是否真的正確（可執行）、解釋的資訊密度，以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 token 效率。
GLM-5.3 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on interpretation: - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is the stated topline, though it's on a constant-currency basis. - **growth_pct**: "eleven and change" is extracted as 11 (an approximation, slightly above 11). - **guidance**: null, since formal guidance was explicitly withheld pending the Q4 close.
輸出 2173 tok (+2045 思考) 延遲 35.8 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
輸出 1199 tok (+1141 思考) 延遲 24.4 s
schema 服從度（不臆造欄位）、幻覺壓力（guidance 明確被暫緩給出），以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
GLM-5.3 通過 · 129 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Universal Prompt Caching** We're thrilled to announce prompt caching that works across every major LLM provider. Identical prompts are now cached once at the gateway level, regardless of which model or vendor serves the request downstream. That means up to 90% savings on token costs and dramatically faster responses for repeated queries. How does it work? Our gateway computes a deterministic hash of each incoming prompt, checks the shared cache layer, and returns instant responses when matches exist. New or modified prompts route normally to your configured provider. Deploy with a single configuration flag; no code changes required. Cache invalidation, TTL controls, and detailed analytics are included. Stop paying twice for the same question. Enable Universal Prompt Caching today. --- *Exactly 120 words; one question; no forbidden terms.*
輸出 5418 tok (+5255 思考) 延遲 52.4 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today, our API gateway adds prompt caching across major model providers. It stores prompts and responses in one fast cache layer. Teams can lower token spend, reduce latency, and repeat reliable answers. The feature supports OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Mistral through one configuration. You can set retention rules, scope access, and invalidate entries quickly. How does your team maintain consistent results during provider outages? Approved cached responses keep applications stable while fallback routes recover. The dashboard shows hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage. Engineers receive audit trails for every cached prompt, enabling safer testing. Product managers can compare cost trends before and after cache adoption. Start with a small route, then safely expand caching to production traffic right now.
輸出 2744 tok (+2591 思考) 延遲 46.3 s
約束服從度（字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句）、文風指紋，以及長度控制。
只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換
以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點，相同的金鑰，相同的請求結構。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="glm-5.3",
# model="qwen3.8-max", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "glm-5.3",
// model: "qwen3.8-max", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "glm-5.3",
# "model": "qwen3.8-max", # 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "glm-5.3",
// Model: "qwen3.8-max", // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("glm-5.3")
// .model("qwen3.8-max") // 取消註解此行，並註解上一行
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
GLM-5.3 和 Qwen3.8 Max 哪個比較便宜？
GLM-5.3 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜（$1.4 對比 $2，相差 1.4×）。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊，實際成本取決於您的使用組合。
我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下，對 GLM-5.3 和 Qwen3.8 Max 進行 A/B 測試嗎？
可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務，並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串，因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。
GLM-5.3 與 Qwen3.8 Max 支援提示快取嗎？
是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率，因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。