Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Llama 3.1-405B

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-405B Meta

30.7

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.1-405B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5 leads 46.4 to 18.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 80% for GLM-5 and 9.7% for Llama 3.1-405B.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Llama 3.1-405B specifications
GLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index46.130.7
Released2026-02-112024-07-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1—
Output $ / M tokens$3.20—
Results tracked4542

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
WeirdML48.2%21.4%
LMArena Coding14611291
SWE-bench Verified72.1%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
LMArena WebDev1434—
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%—
ALE-Bench765.62—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
Terminal-Bench52.4%—
TheAgentCompany—7.4%
τ²-bench Airline82.5%—
τ²-bench Banking9.8%—
τ²-bench Retail73.7%—
τ²-bench Telecom86.8%—
Cybench—7.5%
Vending-Bench 24,432—

Reasoning GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
SimpleBench53.2%23%
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%45%
LMArena Hard Prompts14521269
Epoch Capabilities Index145.83128.75
ForecastBench6159.9
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.8%—
ARC-AGI-144.7%—
Chess Puzzles10%—
DTBench—61.4%
BIG-Bench Hard—82.9%
HellaSwag—89.2%
PIQA—85.9%
WinoGrande—89.2%

Math GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202580%9.7%
LMArena Math14401281
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions65.7%—
Omni-MATH—24.9%
MATH Level 5—49.8%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)16.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
GPQA Diamond87.8%50.9%
LMArena Expert14541243
MMLU-Pro—72.3%
Confabulations—17.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.1%—
GPQA (HELM)—52.2%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—95.3%
MMLU—84.5%
TriviaQA—82.7%

Multilingual GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Non-English14301248
LMArena Chinese15111242
LMArena French14551279
LMArena German14451252
LMArena Japanese14161208
LMArena Korean14231184
LMArena Russian14361265
LMArena Spanish14541260

Instruction Following GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Instruction Following14281259
IFEval—81.1%

Long Context GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Longer Query14461266
CL-bench18.7%—

Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Text14461284
LMArena Creative Writing14391262
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1601870
LMArena Multi-Turn14561297
WildBench—78.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Llama 3.1-405B?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5 or Llama 3.1-405B better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Llama 3.1-405B share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-405B has 42.

Related comparisons

Go deeper