# Codellama 70b Instruct vs GLM-4.7-Flash

> GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/codellama-70b-instruct-vs-glm-4-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Codellama 70b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 5 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.8 to 24.9.

## Snapshot

| | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 33.3 | 38.4 |
| Rank | 236 | 175 |
| Context | — | 200K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.06 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Codellama 70b Instruct: 37.0 (#189)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 40.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1383 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 49.6% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 65.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- Codellama 70b Instruct: 19.2 (#241)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1052 | 1356 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |

## Math

- Codellama 70b Instruct: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 58.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1354 |

## Knowledge

- Codellama 70b Instruct: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 60.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1357 |

## Multilingual

- Codellama 70b Instruct: 24.9 (#283)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 992 | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1403 |
| LMArena French | — | 1332 |
| LMArena German | — | 1336 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1284 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1333 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1351 |

## Instruction Following

- Codellama 70b Instruct: 52.1 (#288)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1024 | 1327 |

## Long Context

- Codellama 70b Instruct: —
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1345 |

## Writing & Preference

- Codellama 70b Instruct: 33.6 (#272)
- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)

| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | GLM-4.7-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1057 | 1351 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Codellama 70b Instruct better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Codellama 70b Instruct or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Codellama 70b Instruct and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 70b Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.