Model comparison

Codellama 34b Instruct vs GLM-4.7-Flash

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Codellama 34b Instruct Meta

30.8

Rank #287 Confirmed

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Codellama 34b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.5 to 25.8.

Side by side

Codellama 34b Instruct and GLM-4.7-Flash specifications
Codellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
ProviderMetaZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index30.838.8
Released—2026-01-19
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—200K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.06
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked1421

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.5 (#314), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Coding10461383
BigCodeBench Instruct29%—
BigCodeBench Complete37.1%—
HumanEval+43.9%—
MBPP+56.3%—

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 19.6 (#255), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts10321356
Chess Puzzles—0%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 31.0 (#230), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Math10561355
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—58.3%

Knowledge Not comparable

Codellama 34b Instruct: —, GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
GPQA Diamond—60.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%
LMArena Expert—1357

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 25.8 (#284), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Non-English10111330
LMArena Chinese9761403
LMArena French—1332
LMArena German—1337
LMArena Korean—1283
LMArena Russian—1332
LMArena Spanish—1350

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 52.2 (#291), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following10281327

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 30.9 (#284), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Longer Query10131345

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.2 (#297), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Text10661351
LMArena Creative Writing10321297
LMArena Multi-Turn10151342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1125

Frequently asked questions

Is Codellama 34b Instruct better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Codellama 34b Instruct or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 28.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Codellama 34b Instruct and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 34b Instruct has 14 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper