Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 66.9 to 34.1.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct specifications
GLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)IBM
Noometry Index47.833.2
Released2026-04-07—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4112

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Coding14851149
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14721138
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84—

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Math14731159
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—
ProofBench22.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Expert14761131
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14471068
LMArena Chinese15151139
LMArena Russian14541063
LMArena French1474—
LMArena German1465—
LMArena Japanese1434—
LMArena Korean1418—
LMArena Spanish1469—

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14511116

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14661155

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Text14611127
LMArena Creative Writing14531116
LMArena Multi-Turn14721099
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper