# Claude 2.1 vs GLM-5.3-Flash

> GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-glm-5-3-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.1 to 9.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash.
- GLM-5.3-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 49.6 |
| Rank | 340 | 45 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.15 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | — | 63.4% |
| FrontierCode | — | 31.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1614 |
| SciCode | — | 51.6% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1506 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 303.55 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.8% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 151.9 |
| CritPt | — | 15.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 14% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1490 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 8% |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 93.9% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 55.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 21% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1499 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 90.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1512 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1304 |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1462 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1529 |
| LMArena French | — | 1495 |
| LMArena German | — | 1457 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1420 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1443 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1472 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1471 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1480 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1479 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1440 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1471 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and GLM-5.3-Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 36.