Model comparison

DeepSeek LLM 67B vs GLM-5

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 14 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek LLM 67B

DeepSeek

24.9

Rank #347 Confirmed

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Summary

They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5 leads 52.3 to 7.0.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.8% for DeepSeek LLM 67B and 80% for GLM-5.

Side by side

DeepSeek LLM 67B and GLM-5 specifications
	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
Provider	DeepSeek	Z.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index	24.9	46.1
Released	2023-11-29	2026-02-11
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	—	205K
Max output	—	131K
Input $ / M tokens	—	$1
Output $ / M tokens	—	$3.20
Results tracked	15	45

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
LMArena Coding	1096	1461
SWE-bench Verified	—	72.1%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)	—	72.8%
LMArena WebDev	—	1434
SWE-bench Multilingual	—	69.7%
WeirdML	—	48.2%
ALE-Bench	—	765.62

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
Terminal-Bench	—	52.4%
τ²-bench Airline	—	82.5%
τ²-bench Banking	—	9.8%
τ²-bench Retail	—	73.7%
τ²-bench Telecom	—	86.8%
Vending-Bench 2	—	4,432

Reasoning GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
Chess Puzzles	0%	10%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1070	1452
Epoch Capabilities Index	110.5	145.83
ARC-AGI-2	—	4.9%
SimpleBench	—	53.2%
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	75%
NYT Connections (extended)	—	74.8%
ARC-AGI-1	—	44.7%
ForecastBench	—	61

Math GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.8%	80%
LMArena Math	1108	1440
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	—	65.7%
MATH Level 5	6.4%	—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	16.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	—	2.1%

Knowledge GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
GPQA Diamond	24.6%	87.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	10.1%
LMArena Expert	—	1454

Multilingual GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
LMArena Non-English	1073	1430
LMArena Chinese	1132	1511
LMArena French	—	1455
LMArena German	—	1445
LMArena Japanese	—	1416
LMArena Korean	—	1423
LMArena Russian	—	1436
LMArena Spanish	—	1454

Instruction Following GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
LMArena Instruction Following	1079	1428

Long Context GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
LMArena Longer Query	1092	1446
CL-bench	—	18.7%

Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek LLM 67B	GLM-5
LMArena Text	1105	1446
LMArena Creative Writing	1067	1439
LMArena Multi-Turn	1082	1456
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	—	1601

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than GLM-5?