Model comparison

GLM-5.1 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 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 36.1.

Side by side

GLM-5.1 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct specifications
GLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index47.839.4
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 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14851347
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 3.1 32b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
APEX-Agents40.9%—
ExploitBench18.1%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 25,634—

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14721322
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 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14731305
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), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert14761308
GPQA Diamond89.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14471275
LMArena Chinese15151304
LMArena French14741328
LMArena German14651282
LMArena Korean14181206
LMArena Russian14541268
LMArena Spanish14691336
LMArena Japanese1434—

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14511299

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14661312

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.1Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14611311
LMArena Creative Writing14531264
LMArena Multi-Turn14721309
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1592—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.1 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.1 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper