Model comparison

Codellama 70b Instruct vs GLM-4.6

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Codellama 70b Instruct Meta

33.7

Rank #237 Confirmed

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Codellama 70b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6 in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.6 leads 53.5 to 24.8.

Side by side

Codellama 70b Instruct and GLM-4.6 specifications
Codellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
ProviderMetaZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index33.741.4
Released—2025-09-30
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$2.20
Results tracked729

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

Codellama 70b Instruct: 37.6 (#193), GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—55.4%
LMArena WebDev—1340
SciCode—38.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct40.7%—
LMArena Coding—1449
BigCodeBench Complete49.6%—
ALE-Bench—340.82
HumanEval+65.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Codellama 70b Instruct: —, GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
Terminal-Bench—24.5%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—72.4%

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

Codellama 70b Instruct: 20.1 (#242), GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
LMArena Hard Prompts10521440
Kagi LLM Benchmark—47.4%
CritPt—1.1%

Math Not comparable

Codellama 70b Instruct: —, GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
LMArena Math—1432
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—3.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Not comparable

Codellama 70b Instruct: —, GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.5%
LMArena Expert—1431

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

Codellama 70b Instruct: 24.8 (#288), GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
LMArena Non-English9921426
LMArena Chinese—1499
LMArena French—1459
LMArena German—1447
LMArena Japanese—1393
LMArena Korean—1400
LMArena Russian—1419
LMArena Spanish—1436

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

Codellama 70b Instruct: 51.9 (#293), GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
LMArena Instruction Following10241410

Long Context Not comparable

Codellama 70b Instruct: —, GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
LMArena Longer Query—1422

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

Codellama 70b Instruct: 33.4 (#277), GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 70b InstructGLM-4.6
LMArena Text10571440
LMArena Creative Writing—1411
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1411
LMArena Multi-Turn—1427

Frequently asked questions

Is Codellama 70b Instruct better than GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Codellama 70b Instruct or GLM-4.6 better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 37.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Codellama 70b Instruct and GLM-4.6 share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 70b Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6 has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper