Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6 leads 61.1 to 50.2.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2025-09-30 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1449 | 1347 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 55.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1340 | — |
| SciCode | 38.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 340.82 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 24.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 72.4% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1440 | 1322 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 47.4% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
Math GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1308 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.5% | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1426 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1499 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1419 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1436 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1393 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1410 | 1299 |
Long Context GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1440 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1309 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.1 vs 39.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.