Model comparison

GLM-5 vs Step 2 16k Exp 202412

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Step 2 16k Exp 202412 StepFun

39.2

Rank #171 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 8 categories and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5 leads 52.3 to 35.2.
  • GLM-5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-5 and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 specifications
GLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)StepFun
Noometry Index46.139.2
Released2026-02-11—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1—
Output $ / M tokens$3.20—
Results tracked4512

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 49.0 (#52), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 38.5 (#174)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Coding14611316
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), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
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), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 25.9 (#142)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Hard Prompts14521299
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), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 36.3 (#169)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Math14401304
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), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 35.2 (#187)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Expert14541279
GPQA Diamond87.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.1%—

Multilingual GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 53.7 (#58), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 43.7 (#181)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Non-English14301290
LMArena Chinese15111331
LMArena Russian14361324
LMArena French1455—
LMArena German1445—
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1423—
LMArena Spanish1454—

Instruction Following GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 75.2 (#67), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 67.9 (#192)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Instruction Following14281287

Long Context GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 44.7 (#60), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 39.7 (#170)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Longer Query14461307
CL-bench18.7%—

Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads

GLM-5: 66.0 (#38), Step 2 16k Exp 202412: 52.3 (#173)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5Step 2 16k Exp 202412
LMArena Text14461321
LMArena Creative Writing14391328
LMArena Multi-Turn14561292
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1601—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5 better than Step 2 16k Exp 202412?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5 or Step 2 16k Exp 202412 better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Step 2 16k Exp 202412 has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper