Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

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

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 48.0 to 25.2.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index51.837.9
Released2026-08-20—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked4015

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 Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding15081291
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 Think: —

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

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14911272
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 Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
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 Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert15131295
GPQA Diamond90.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

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

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

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14621209
LMArena Chinese15271242
LMArena French14961260
LMArena German14701262
LMArena Russian14691193
LMArena Spanish14711289
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1446—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14781247

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14821272

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14711272
LMArena Creative Writing14421226
LMArena Multi-Turn14671252

Frequently asked questions

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

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper