Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Llama 13b

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Llama 13b Meta

24.4

Rank #348 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 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-5.1 leads 66.9 to 13.8.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Llama 13b specifications
GLM-5.1Llama 13b
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index47.824.4
Released2026-04-072023-02-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4121

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), Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
LMArena Coding1485683
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Llama 13b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts1472728
Epoch Capabilities Index149.84100.58
SimpleBench55.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)77.7%—
CritPt4.6%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
Thematic Generalization69.8%—
BIG-Bench Hard—37.9%
HellaSwag—79.2%
LAMBADA—75.2%
PIQA—80.1%
WinoGrande—73%

Math GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256)

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Llama 13b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—
LMArena Expert1476—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—52.7%
BoolQ—78.7%
MMLU—47.7%
OpenBookQA—56.4%
TriviaQA—77.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.1: —, Llama 13b: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
ScienceQA—43.3%

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
LMArena Non-English1447819
LMArena Chinese1515—
LMArena French1474—
LMArena German1465—
LMArena Japanese1434—
LMArena Korean1418—
LMArena Russian1454—
LMArena Spanish1469—

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
LMArena Instruction Following1451781

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Llama 13b: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
LMArena Longer Query1466—

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Llama 13b
LMArena Text1461834
LMArena Creative Writing1453794
LMArena Multi-Turn1472753
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Llama 13b?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Llama 13b better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Llama 13b share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Llama 13b has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper