Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 13b

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Llama 13b Meta

24.4

Rank #348 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 13b in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 47.4 to 13.8.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index38.824.4
Released2026-01-192023-02-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.06—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked2121

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Coding1383683

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts1356728
Chess Puzzles0%—
BIG-Bench Hard—37.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—100.58
HellaSwag—79.2%
LAMBADA—75.2%
PIQA—80.1%
WinoGrande—73%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Math1355838
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
GSM8K—20.6%

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Llama 13b: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1357—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—52.7%
BoolQ—78.7%
MMLU—47.7%
OpenBookQA—56.4%
TriviaQA—77.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 13b: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
ScienceQA—43.3%

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Non-English1330819
LMArena Chinese1403—
LMArena French1332—
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Korean1283—
LMArena Russian1332—
LMArena Spanish1350—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Instruction Following1327781

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Llama 13b: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Longer Query1345—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Text1351834
LMArena Creative Writing1297794
LMArena Multi-Turn1342753
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 13b?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 13b better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 13b share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 13b has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper