Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 19.5.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct specifications
GLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index47.832.7
Released2026-04-07—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4116

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), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14851210
SWE-bench Verified74.2%—
LMArena WebDev1508—
SciCode43.8%—
WeirdML57.1%—
ALE-Bench887.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14721208
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), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14731208
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—
ProofBench22.2%—
Omni-MATH—16.1%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)33.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)12.5%—

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—
MMLU-Pro—41.4%
GPQA (HELM)—28.7%
LMArena Expert1476—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14471160
LMArena Chinese15151192
LMArena Russian14541187
LMArena French1474—
LMArena German1465—
LMArena Japanese1434—
LMArena Korean1418—
LMArena Spanish1469—

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14511186
IFEval—78%

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14661194

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14611218
LMArena Creative Writing14531199
LMArena Multi-Turn14721221
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—
WildBench—73.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper