# GLM-4.6V vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-olmo-2-0325-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 38.0 to 19.5.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 32.7 |
| Rank | 137 | 254 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1210 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1208 |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Omni-MATH | — | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1208 |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | — | 41.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 28.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | — |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1160 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1192 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1187 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1186 |
| IFEval | — | 78% |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1194 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1218 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1199 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1221 |
| WildBench | — | 73.4% |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.6V or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.