Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Olmo 7b Instruct

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 6 categories and Olmo 7b Instruct in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.4 to 25.8.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Olmo 7b Instruct specifications
GLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index51.130.3
Released2026-06-13—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5110

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41), Olmo 7b Instruct: 29.6 (#303)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Coding14851016
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
LMArena WebDev1603—
SciCode50.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Olmo 7b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
APEX-Agents45.2%—
τ²-bench Banking37.1%—
PostTrainBench31.7%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 28,314—

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), Olmo 7b Instruct: 18.8 (#274)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts1480993
ARC-AGI-222.8%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.3%—
ARC-AGI-177%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
EBR-Bench9.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles19%—
DTBench93.6%—
LMCA45.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.78—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Olmo 7b Instruct: 30.2 (#237)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Math14821018
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Olmo 7b Instruct: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—
LMArena Expert1486—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Olmo 7b Instruct: 24.0 (#291)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Non-English1459977
LMArena Chinese15191014
LMArena Russian1466947
LMArena French1479—
LMArena German1468—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1445—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Olmo 7b Instruct: 49.0 (#301)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1465978

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Olmo 7b Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1479—

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Olmo 7b Instruct: 25.8 (#303)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Olmo 7b Instruct
LMArena Text14701032
LMArena Creative Writing1462990
LMArena Multi-Turn14691007
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Olmo 7b Instruct?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Olmo 7b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Olmo 7b Instruct share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 7b Instruct has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper