Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.6

Rank #25 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3 leads 58.3 to 19.2.

Side by side

GLM-5.3 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct specifications
GLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index54.632.2
Released2026-08-14—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4116

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 59.0 (#12), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.6 (#222)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14991210
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
LMArena WebDev1623—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.3 (#34), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 45.2 (#42), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 22.6 (#174)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14911208
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.56—

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.1 (#27), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 24.8 (#255)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14931208
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%—
ProofBench49%—
Omni-MATH—16.1%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#34), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.2 (#274)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.9%—
SimpleQA Verified41%—
MMLU-Pro—41.4%
GPQA (HELM)—28.7%
LMArena Expert1512—

Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 55.9 (#27), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.0 (#243)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14571160
LMArena Chinese15231192
LMArena Russian14601187
LMArena French1499—
LMArena German1505—
LMArena Japanese1438—
LMArena Korean1478—
LMArena Spanish1444—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 77.8 (#15), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.8 (#238)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14811186
IFEval—78%

Long Context GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 45.5 (#32), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#229)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14851194

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 75.9 (#6), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.3 (#231)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14731218
LMArena Creative Writing14591199
LMArena Multi-Turn14731221
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
WildBench—73.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3 or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.0 versus 34.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper