Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Llama 3.2 90B

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 90B Meta

27.5

Rank #331 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 4 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5 leads 46.4 to 11.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 80% for GLM-5 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Llama 3.2 90B specifications
GLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index46.127.5
Released2026-02-112024-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1—
Output $ / M tokens$3.20—
Results tracked459

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
SWE-bench Verified72.1%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
LMArena WebDev1434—
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%—
WeirdML48.2%—
LMArena Coding1461—
ALE-Bench765.62—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
Terminal-Bench52.4%—
τ²-bench Airline82.5%—
τ²-bench Banking9.8%—
τ²-bench Retail73.7%—
τ²-bench Telecom86.8%—
BALROG—27.3%
Vending-Bench 24,432—

Reasoning GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
Epoch Capabilities Index145.83125.5
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench53.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.8%—
ARC-AGI-144.7%—
Chess Puzzles10%—
EnigmaEval—0.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1452—
ForecastBench61—

Math GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)

Knowledge GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
GPQA Diamond87.8%41%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.1%—
LMArena Expert1454—
MMLU—80.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Vision—1000
GeoBench—52%

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Non-English1430—
LMArena Chinese1511—
LMArena French1455—
LMArena German1445—
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1423—
LMArena Russian1436—
LMArena Spanish1454—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Instruction Following1428—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
CL-bench18.7%—
LMArena Longer Query1446—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Text1446—
LMArena Creative Writing1439—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1601—
LMArena Multi-Turn1456—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Llama 3.2 90B?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Llama 3.2 90B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper