Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Llama 3-70B

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Llama 3-70B Meta

28.8

Rank #323 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3-70B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.3 to 12.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 4.3% for Llama 3-70B.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index51.828.8
Released2026-08-202024-04-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4031

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 3-70B: 35.8 (#218)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Coding15081206
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
SciCode51.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—43.6%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.5%
ALE-Bench303.55—
HumanEval+—72%
MBPP+—69%

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Llama 3-70B: 21.1 (#139)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
APEX-Agents52.8%—
Cybench—5%
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Llama 3-70B: 18.0 (#288)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts14911195
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88122.93
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—35.1%
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
DTBench—54.2%
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
ForecastBench—57.1
WinoGrande—83.5%

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Llama 3-70B: 12.8 (#305)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%4.3%
LMArena Math15001218
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
ProofBench21%—
MATH Level 5—22.6%

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Llama 3-70B: 20.8 (#277)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
GPQA Diamond90.2%40.6%
LMArena Expert15131149
MMLU—79.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Llama 3-70B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Llama 3-70B: 33.6 (#251)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Non-English14621142
LMArena Chinese15271114
LMArena French14961232
LMArena German14701169
LMArena Japanese14291017
LMArena Korean14461017
LMArena Russian14691159
LMArena Spanish14711241

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Llama 3-70B: 62.5 (#238)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Instruction Following14781194

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Llama 3-70B: 35.6 (#240)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Longer Query14821174

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Llama 3-70B: 42.8 (#231)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashLlama 3-70B
LMArena Text14711221
LMArena Creative Writing14421210
LMArena Multi-Turn14671223

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Llama 3-70B?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Llama 3-70B better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 3-70B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3-70B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper