Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Llama 3.2 90B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 11.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 27.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 90B leads
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| BALROG | — | 27.3% |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 125.5 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.4% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 2.6% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 41% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | — |
| MMLU | — | 80.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.1: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1000 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | — |
| LMArena French | 1474 | — |
| LMArena German | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Llama 3.2 90B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.