Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Llama 2-13B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-13B 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 29.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 19% for GLM-5.1 and 0% for Llama 2-13B.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 29.6 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 32 |
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 2-13B: 30.9 (#291)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1062 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Llama 2-13B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1051 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 106.17 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| DTBench | — | 42.2% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 58.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 80.7% |
| LAMBADA | — | 76.5% |
| PIQA | — | 80.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 72.8% |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1473 | 1065 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 36.9% |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | 1030 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 60.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 82.4% |
| MMLU | — | 55.6% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 57% |
| TriviaQA | — | 79.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.1: —, Llama 2-13B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 55.8% |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | 1024 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | 1001 |
| LMArena French | 1474 | 1044 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1009 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | 894 |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | 953 |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | 1055 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | 1087 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1045 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | 1064 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1047 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1050 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Llama 2-13B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.1 or Llama 2-13B better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Llama 2-13B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-13B has 32.