Artificial analysis shows this: underperforming Qwen3.8 Flash Next and GLM 5.3 Flash, both of which you can run on a single B300 . I think Meta has a bit of catching up to do in the open-weight space.

As an aside, it's really unfortunate that artificial analysis only provides comparison at the highest reasoning level, which is mostly unusable for high-volume production use cases. I would really like them to start providing comparisons at low and medium reasoning levels across these models because those tend to be the ones that actually get used in production.

Been using GLM 5.3 Flash via Ollama Cloud basic subscription:

if this is the only model I had to use for the rest of my life, I would be cool with that. It's good at a wide variety of tasks including reverse engineering, design, working with ESP 32 etc.

I think Muse Spark 1.3 is better but GLM 5.3 Flash is an excellent daily driver.

I agree, however It's too easy to game arbitrary limits like "medium". There is no olympics for "just rolled out of bed and slightly hungover"

The most important graph for me on Artificial Analysis is this: https://artificialanalysis.ai/?agentic-speed=intelligence-vs...

It shows the time to complete a task versus intelligence index, which is much more important for my use-case as I do quick back and forths usually. Someone on here suggested it to me a while ago. It also captures speed and token efficiency nicely, since both of these decrease time per task.

this is properly bad as you can run glm on 6000pro, at (in my eyes) pretty good quant, and a q2 on a 5090. im suprised at how good 5.3 flash is at some parts. i still think ds4.1 flash is better but it is more demanding. i hope meta pushes something in a range of 300-400b with a 15-20b active parameters. i know its a crowded space. but it would be fast and probably mostly good enough.

Yep, just benchmarked it against GLM5.3 Flash on my own local bench and it's slower in TTFT, tok/s and concurrency. It also scored lower.

Tried different reasoning levels and didn't really see any difference but GLM 5.3 flash only really works high, max or none so I couldn't really compare the lower efforts which appear to work on Spark.

My immediate reaction is that it’s weaker on coding than other open-weight models and that coding is a primary use case for running locally (not the only one, but surely a major one). That said, it takes a lot to get full Kimi and GLM running locally.

> As an aside, it's really unfortunate that artificial analysis only provides comparison at the highest reasoning level, which is mostly unusable for high-volume production use cases. I would really like them to start providing comparisons at low and medium reasoning levels across these models because those tend to be the ones that actually get used in production.

The frustrating thing is they started doing this for the big labs—you can see their benchmarks for all reasoning levels of Sol 6.1 or Haiku 5.5. They just don't seem to do it for any of the open weight models.

There’s a reason they put the “US” in “the most capable US open weight model”.

Artificial analysis puts it next to Mistral's new model.

Which is crazy bc they promised to open source muse 1.2 which is good. And they give us this bait and switch

yeah for botsbench.com side where we do cybersecurity investigation evals of models + harnesses, we've been having to play with:

1) time budget model gets (5min / task) -- this became a real problem with opus/astra/fable at high+

2) tuning which effort level we report on (when not all)

Why didnt thry include OpenAI or Anthropic models? I get they were comparing open weights.

very true. when configuring custom agents for enterprise, we almost always default to none or low reasoning knobs. The added latency from medium or higher reasoning levels compared to the improvement in response quality is a diminished return.

AA is a joke.

[flagged]

[dead]

[dead]