—
Input $/M
—
Output $/M
1M
Context
115
Speed tok/s

Agent scores

Terminal-Bench 2.x

shell agent loops

Can the model finish real terminal / shell-agent tasks end to end — install tools, run commands, recover from errors.

0–100, higher is better. 70+ means a usable coding agent in a terminal; 80+ is frontier agent quality.

Editorial scores, not auto-scraped. Versions (2.0 vs 2.1) are not always comparable.

88.2 (v) · TB3 28.3

SWE-bench Pro

software engineering

Can the model solve real software-engineering problems — patches, reviews, and repo-level fixes — in a single pass.

0–100, higher is better. A high score means stronger code-review and patch quality, not just snippet completion.

This is SWE-bench Pro, not SWE-bench Verified. Vendor harness notes are marked (v).

—

MCP-Atlas

multi-tool use

Can the model use many Model Context Protocol tools together — pick the right tool, pass arguments, and chain calls.

0–100, higher is better. High scores matter if your agent talks to GitHub, browsers, databases, or other MCP servers.

—

SWE-Marathon & Long-Horizon

sustained multi-hour work

Whether the model stays useful over long agent sessions instead of collapsing after a few dozen steps.

Mixed — not one number. Use this as supporting evidence for long-running agents, not as a ranking against TB or SWE-Pro.

Entries mix DeepSWE percentages, Marathon raw scores, and tool-call counts. Bars are editorial, not a shared scale.

66.9% DeepSWE (v)

Vendor launch scores

Z.ai launch · 2026-08-14. Vendor harness — not independent evals.

BenchmarkScoreNote
Coding
Terminal-Bench 3.028.3(v) Claude Code
DeepSWE v1.166.9(v)
NL2Repo58.0(v)
ProgramBench Almost Solved19.0(v)
FrontierSWE78.1(v) Proximal
SWE-Marathon v1.142.5(v)
PostTrainBench39.8(v)
Cyber
CyberGym84.5(v) SOTA
ExploitGym 2h / 6h105 / 130(v)
ExploitBench54.4(v)
Agentic
Toolathlon Verified73.0(v)
AutomationBench v1.0.648.2(v)
Agents' Last Exam ALE-CLI28.5(v)
HLE w/ Tools62.5(v)
GDPval-AA v21769(v) Elo

Source: z.ai/blog/glm-5.3. (v) = vendor harness.

Extended scores

BFCL

function calling

Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (V4): can the model call APIs with the right names, types, and arguments.

0–100, higher is better. Useful when the job is structured tool calls rather than a full agent loop.

Coverage is thin on newest models. Sourced manually from the Berkeley leaderboard.

—

tau-bench

multi-turn agent tasks

Can the model hold a multi-turn tool-using conversation and finish a policy-constrained task.

0–100, higher is better. High scores help for customer-support-style agents that must follow rules across turns.

—

AIME

math reasoning

American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems — contest math, not coding.

0–100, higher is better. A proxy for careful multi-step reasoning. Weak signal for terminal or repo agents.

—

MMLU-Pro

knowledge breadth

Harder multiple-choice knowledge questions across academic subjects.

0–100, higher is better. Shows general knowledge. Does not measure tool use or coding agents.

—

LiveCodeBench

live coding

Can the model solve fresh programming problems (contamination-resistant coding).

0–100, higher is better. Complements SWE-Pro: LiveCode is contest-style code, SWE-Pro is repo engineering.

—

Where to buy

ProviderTheir priceNoteLink
Z.AI DevPackSubsubNew flagship · Coding Plan—

Editorial routing

Task matrix
TaskRoleNote
Long-horizon multi-tool agentAlternativeToolathlon 73.0 (v)
Terminal-agent loopsAlternative88.2 (v)
Security reviewPrimaryCyberGym 84.5 SOTA
Planning / spec modeAlternativeGDPval-AA v2 1769 (v)
Long-horizon autonomousAlternativeDeepSWE 66.9%
Budget and pairs