Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Llama 2-7B

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 65.3 to 28.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 14% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 0% for Llama 2-7B.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index51.829.1
Released2026-08-202023-07-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4029

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 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Coding15081002
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 2-7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
Chess Puzzles14%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14911009
Epoch Capabilities Index151.8899.06
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
BIG-Bench Hard—39.2%
HellaSwag—77.2%
LAMBADA—73.3%
PIQA—78.8%
WinoGrande—69.2%

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Math15001042
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—
GSM8K—16.7%

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Expert15131036
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—45.9%
BoolQ—77.9%
MMLU—45.8%
OpenBookQA—58.6%
TriviaQA—73.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Llama 2-7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Vision1296—
ScienceQA—43.1%

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Non-English1462973
LMArena Chinese1527973
LMArena French1496970
LMArena German1470978
LMArena Russian1469995
LMArena Spanish14711007
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1446—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Instruction Following14781006

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Longer Query1482999

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Text14711053
LMArena Creative Writing14421033
LMArena Multi-Turn14671029

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Llama 2-7B?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Llama 2-7B better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 2-7B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper