Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 36.1.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index51.839.4
Released2026-08-20—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4016

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), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding15081347
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), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14911322
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math15001305
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert15131308
GPQA Diamond90.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14621275
LMArena Chinese15271304
LMArena French14961328
LMArena German14701282
LMArena Korean14461206
LMArena Russian14691268
LMArena Spanish14711336
LMArena Japanese1429—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14781299

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14821312

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14711311
LMArena Creative Writing14421264
LMArena Multi-Turn14671309

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper