# GLM-5.1 vs Llama 3.2 90B

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-1-vs-llama-3-2-90b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.0 to 10.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for GLM-5.1 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 27.1 |
| Rank | 51 | 326 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $1.40 | — |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
- Llama 3.2 90B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | — |
| SciCode | 43.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
- Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| BALROG | — | 27.3% |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
- Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | 125.5 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| CritPt | 4.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.4% |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | — |

## Math

- GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
- Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 2.6% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1472 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
- Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | 41% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | — |
| MMLU | — | 80.3% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5.1: —
- Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119)

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1000 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
- Llama 3.2 90B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena French | 1478 | — |
| LMArena German | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
- Llama 3.2 90B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
- Llama 3.2 90B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
- Llama 3.2 90B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5.1 better than Llama 3.2 90B?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.