Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs Llama 3-70B

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Llama 3-70B Meta

28.8

Rank #323 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3-70B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 38.0 to 20.8.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and Llama 3-70B specifications
GLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index41.328.8
Released2025-12-082024-04-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$0.90—
Results tracked1231

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Llama 3-70B: 35.8 (#218)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Coding13901206
BigCodeBench Instruct—43.6%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.5%
HumanEval+—72%
MBPP+—69%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Llama 3-70B: 21.1 (#139)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
Cybench—5%

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Llama 3-70B: 18.0 (#288)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts13681195
Kagi LLM Benchmark—35.1%
DTBench—54.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—122.93
ForecastBench—57.1
WinoGrande—83.5%

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, Llama 3-70B: 12.8 (#305)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—4.3%
LMArena Math—1218
MATH Level 5—22.6%

Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Llama 3-70B: 20.8 (#277)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Expert13711149
GPQA Diamond—40.6%
MMLU—79.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Llama 3-70B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Llama 3-70B: 33.6 (#251)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Non-English13591142
LMArena Chinese14251114
LMArena Russian13401159
LMArena French—1232
LMArena German—1169
LMArena Japanese—1017
LMArena Korean—1017
LMArena Spanish—1241

Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Llama 3-70B: 62.5 (#238)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Instruction Following13521194

Long Context GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Llama 3-70B: 35.6 (#240)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Longer Query13581174

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Llama 3-70B: 42.8 (#231)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VLlama 3-70B
LMArena Text13771221
LMArena Creative Writing13471210
LMArena Multi-Turn13601223

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than Llama 3-70B?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.6V or Llama 3-70B better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Llama 3-70B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3-70B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper