# Z.ai GLM 5.3 Flash tops Editorial Craft benchmark at 0.94 > Source: > Published: 2026-08-27 00:45:16+00:00 # Z.ai GLM 5.3 Flash tops Editorial Craft benchmark at 0.94 **In a 12-task Editorial Craft evaluation, Z.ai’s GLM 5.3 Flash ranked first with a 0.94 score and an estimated cost of $0.0002 per task. Step-3.7-flash followed at 0.92, while Qwen3.8 Flash, Claude Opus 5 (Fast), Gemini 3.7 Flash, and DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 rounded out the leaderboard.** By [RuntimeWire Staff](/author/runtimewire-staff) · Published ### Leaderboard | Rank | Model | Mean score | Est. cost/task | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash | 0.94 | $0.0002 | | 2 | step-3.7-flash | 0.92 | — | | 3 | Qwen: Qwen3.8 Flash | 0.90 | $0.0003 | | 4 | Claude Opus 5 (Fast) | 0.88 | $0.0334 | | 5 | Google: Gemini 3.7 Flash | 0.87 | $0.0011 | | 6 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | 0.72 | — | ### How we scored it Every model answered the same 12-task battery from **Editorial Craft**, one task at a time, with no tools and no retries on content. 2 tasks carry ground truth (exact, numeric, multiple-choice, or the benchmark's official matcher) and were scored deterministically against the reference answer — correct is 1, incorrect is 0. 10 open-ended tasks were graded 0–10 by gpt-5.4 against a fixed rubric — blind to which model wrote the answer — and normalized to the same 0–1 scale. Reasoning effort was pinned to **max** for every model whose lane exposes a control (OpenAI-style `reasoning_effort` , Anthropic extended thinking, Gemini thinking config). Models marked *vendor default* on the interactive board expose no such control and ran as shipped. A model's **mean score** averages its graded tasks; a generation failure counts as 0. **Cost per task** is estimated from each model's published per-token pricing ("—" where pricing isn't public), so treat it as directional, not billing-exact. Explore every prompt, answer, and per-task grade in the [interactive leaderboard](/benchmarks/editorial-craft-leaderboard).