Model comparison
GLM-5.3-Flash vs Llama 3.2 3B
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 65.3 to 24.7.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.50 for GLM-5.3-Flash.
- GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 51.8 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2026-08-20 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 18 |
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 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1508 | 1098 |
| DeepSWE | 63.4% | — |
| FrontierCode | 31.8% | — |
| CursorBench | 36.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1609 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 18.1% | — |
| SciCode | 51.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 303.55 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 52.8% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1491 | 1095 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 91% | — |
| CritPt | 15.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 52.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.88 | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1500 | 1126 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 55.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 21% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1513 | 1090 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Llama 3.2 3B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1462 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1527 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1469 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1496 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1429 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1089 |
Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1100 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads
GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3-Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1094 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | 1105 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Llama 3.2 3B?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3-Flash or Llama 3.2 3B?
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3-Flash lists at $0.15 and $0.50.
Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 3.2 3B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.