Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Llama 3-8B
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3-8B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6 leads 40.2 to 7.8.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 25.5 |
| Released | 2025-09-30 | 2024-04-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 34 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Llama 3-8B: 31.0 (#289)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1449 | 1152 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 55.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1340 | — |
| SciCode | 38.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 31.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 36.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 340.82 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 56.7% |
| MBPP+ | — | 54.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Llama 3-8B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 24.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 72.4% | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Llama 3-8B: 14.3 (#326)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1440 | 1133 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 47.4% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 43.9% |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 57.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 116.45 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.6 |
| WinoGrande | — | 75.7% |
Math GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Llama 3-8B: 8.8 (#323)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | 1151 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 1.9% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 6.1% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Llama 3-8B: 7.8 (#308)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1113 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 26.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.5% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 82.8% |
| MMLU | — | 68.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 82.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 67.7% |
Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Llama 3-8B: 30.8 (#261)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1426 | 1098 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1499 | 1076 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1104 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1393 | 967 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1004 |
| LMArena Russian | 1419 | 1109 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1436 | 1173 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Llama 3-8B: 58.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1410 | 1127 |
Long Context GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Llama 3-8B: 34.2 (#251)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1128 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Llama 3-8B: 37.5 (#256)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1440 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1150 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1152 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6 better than Llama 3-8B?
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6 or Llama 3-8B better for coding?
GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 31.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Llama 3-8B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3-8B has 34.