Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs WizardLM-2 8x22B

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#26); WizardLM-2 8x22B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

WizardLM-2 8x22B Microsoft

31.4

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 2 categories and WizardLM-2 8x22B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3 leads 58.3 to 23.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.9% for GLM-5.3 and 43.4% for WizardLM-2 8x22B.
  • WizardLM-2 8x22B is cheaper at $0.62 / $0.62 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
  • GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 66K.

Side by side

GLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index54.831.4
Released2026-08-142024-04-15
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M66K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.62
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.62
Results tracked422

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
LMArena WebDev1622—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
LMArena Coding1496—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1489—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61—

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), WizardLM-2 8x22B: 28.9

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%—
ProofBench49%—
LMArena Math1489—
MATH Level 5—25.7%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), WizardLM-2 8x22B: 23.3

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
GPQA Diamond90.9%43.4%
SimpleQA Verified41%—
LMArena Expert1516—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Non-English1457—
LMArena Chinese1528—
LMArena French1499—
LMArena German1499—
LMArena Japanese1453—
LMArena Korean1472—
LMArena Russian1463—
LMArena Spanish1460—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1457—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than WizardLM-2 8x22B?

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#26); WizardLM-2 8x22B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or WizardLM-2 8x22B?

WizardLM-2 8x22B is cheaper. It lists at $0.62 per million input tokens and $0.62 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 66K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and WizardLM-2 8x22B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and WizardLM-2 8x22B has 2.

Related comparisons

Go deeper