Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 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 writing & preference, where GLM-5 leads 66.0 to 46.2.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think specifications
GLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index46.137.9
Released2026-02-11—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1—
Output $ / M tokens$3.20—
Results tracked4515

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14611291
SWE-bench Verified72.1%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
LMArena WebDev1434—
SWE-bench Multilingual69.7%—
WeirdML48.2%—
ALE-Bench765.62—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5: 31.1 (#71), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Terminal-Bench52.4%—
τ²-bench Airline82.5%—
τ²-bench Banking9.8%—
τ²-bench Retail73.7%—
τ²-bench Telecom86.8%—
Vending-Bench 24,432—

Reasoning GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 27.6 (#116), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14521272
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench53.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.8%—
ARC-AGI-144.7%—
Chess Puzzles10%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.83—
ForecastBench61—

Math GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 46.4 (#71), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14401305
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions65.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202580%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)16.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 52.3 (#64), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14541295
GPQA Diamond87.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.1%—

Multilingual GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14301209
LMArena Chinese15111242
LMArena French14551260
LMArena German14451262
LMArena Russian14361193
LMArena Spanish14541289
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1423—

Instruction Following GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14281247

Long Context GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14461272
CL-bench18.7%—

Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14461272
LMArena Creative Writing14391226
LMArena Multi-Turn14561252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1601—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper