Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Granite 3.1 8b Instruct

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 31.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

40.9

Rank #132 Confirmed

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct IBM

31.8

Rank #256 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6 leads 61.3 to 35.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 72.4% for GLM-4.6 and 27.1% for Granite 3.1 8b Instruct.

Side by side

GLM-4.6 and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct specifications
GLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)IBM
Noometry Index40.931.8
Released2025-09-30—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked2913

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.9 (#137), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 33.9 (#232)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Coding14491186
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1339—
SciCode38.4%—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 32.1 (#60), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 23.9 (#113)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%27.1%
Terminal-Bench24.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 23.1 (#168), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 21.2 (#204)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14401146
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
CritPt1.1%—

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 36.4 (#115), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.4 (#210)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Math14311152
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.6 (#118), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.6 (#218)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Expert14321142
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 53.6 (#62), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#255)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14261099
LMArena Chinese15001145
LMArena Russian14181092
LMArena French1459—
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Japanese1394—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 74.5 (#93), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.9 (#254)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14101131

Long Context GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#91), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#236)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14231162

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 61.3 (#86), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.7 (#261)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Text14401150
LMArena Creative Writing14111129
LMArena Multi-Turn14271108
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Granite 3.1 8b Instruct?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 31.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.6 or Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.9 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper