Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 2.1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude 2.1 Anthropic

25.2

Rank #345 Reported

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.3 to 10.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
ProviderAnthropicZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index25.251.8
Released2023-11-212026-08-20
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.15
Output $ / M tokens—$0.50
Results tracked740

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
DeepSWE—63.4%
FrontierCode—31.8%
CursorBench—36.8%
LMArena WebDev—1609
FrontierSWE—18.1%
SciCode—51.6%
WeirdML7.1%—
LMArena Coding—1508
ALE-Bench—303.55

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
APEX-Agents—52.8%
GDP.pdf—14%

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index119.27151.88
ARC-AGI-2—65.8%
ARC-AGI-1—91%
CritPt—15.4%
Chess Puzzles—14%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1491
Mystery Game Puzzles—8%
DTBench51%—
Surface Evolver Bench—52.5%
Bench to the Future 3—0.15
ForecastBench54.2—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.9%93.9%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—55.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4—17.1%
ProofBench—21%
LMArena Math—1500

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
GPQA Diamond33%90.2%
LMArena Expert—1513
MMLU73.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Vision—1296

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Non-English—1462
LMArena Chinese—1527
LMArena French—1496
LMArena German—1470
LMArena Japanese—1429
LMArena Korean—1446
LMArena Russian—1469
LMArena Spanish—1471

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1478

Long Context Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1482

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1GLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Text—1471
LMArena Creative Writing—1442
LMArena Multi-Turn—1467

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-5.3-Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 40.

Related comparisons

Go deeper