Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Llama 13b

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Llama 13b Meta

24.4

Rank #348 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 13b in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 65.3 to 13.8.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 13b specifications
GLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index51.824.4
Released2026-08-202023-02-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4021

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31), Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Coding1508683
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Llama 13b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts1491728
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88100.58
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
BIG-Bench Hard—37.9%
HellaSwag—79.2%
LAMBADA—75.2%
PIQA—80.1%
WinoGrande—73%

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Math1500838
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—
GSM8K—20.6%

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Llama 13b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
LMArena Expert1513—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—52.7%
BoolQ—78.7%
MMLU—47.7%
OpenBookQA—56.4%
TriviaQA—77.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Llama 13b: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Vision1296—
ScienceQA—43.3%

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Non-English1462819
LMArena Chinese1527—
LMArena French1496—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1446—
LMArena Russian1469—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Instruction Following1478781

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Llama 13b: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 13b
LMArena Text1471834
LMArena Creative Writing1442794
LMArena Multi-Turn1467753

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Llama 13b?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Llama 13b better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 13b share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Llama 13b has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper