Noometry

Model comparison

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b vs GLM-5.3-Flash

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b Cohere

35.9

Rank #221 Confirmed

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 33.2.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

C4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index35.951.8
Released2024-10-242026-08-20
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K1M
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.15
Output $ / M tokens—$0.50
Results tracked1840

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.8 (#231), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Coding11971508
DeepSWE—63.4%
FrontierCode—31.8%
CursorBench—36.8%
LMArena WebDev—1609
FrontierSWE—18.1%
SciCode—51.6%
ALE-Bench—303.55

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
APEX-Agents—52.8%
GDP.pdf—14%

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 23.3 (#180), GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11931491
ARC-AGI-2—65.8%
ARC-AGI-1—91%
CritPt—15.4%
Chess Puzzles—14%
Mystery Game Puzzles—8%
Surface Evolver Bench—52.5%
Bench to the Future 3—0.15
Epoch Capabilities Index—151.88

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.0 (#197), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Math12001500
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—55.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4—17.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.9%
ProofBench—21%

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 33.2 (#206), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Expert11821513
GPQA Diamond—90.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Vision—1296

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 38.4 (#230), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Non-English12131462
LMArena Chinese12111527
LMArena French12481496
LMArena German11991470
LMArena Japanese11631429
LMArena Korean11581446
LMArena Russian12271469
LMArena Spanish11931471

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 62.6 (#237), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following11961478

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 37.2 (#220), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12281482

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 42.2 (#235), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Text12241471
LMArena Creative Writing12001442
LMArena Multi-Turn11901467

Frequently asked questions

Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b better than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 34.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do C4ai Aya Expanse 32b and GLM-5.3-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b has 18 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 40.

Related comparisons

Go deeper