Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 43.4.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct specifications
GLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)NVIDIA
Noometry Index42.035.9
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3612

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 35.6 (#222)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Coding14541223
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 23.5 (#177)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14431203
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 34.6 (#193)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Math14231230
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 31.9 (#218)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Expert14241167
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 36.1 (#241)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14171181
LMArena Chinese14951180
LMArena Russian14231187
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1424—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1399—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 62.9 (#233)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14111201

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 36.5 (#230)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14321205
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 43.4 (#229)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct
LMArena Text14351228
LMArena Creative Writing14011213
LMArena Multi-Turn14461227
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 35.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper