Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs phi-3-medium 14B
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and phi-3-medium 14B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 54.9 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 89.9% for GLM-5.1 and 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 13 |
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), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | 121.23 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 27.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 phi-3-medium 14B?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.1 or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and phi-3-medium 14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.