# GLM-5 vs Llama 13b

> GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-5-vs-llama-13b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 9

## Summary

- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5 scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 13b in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5 leads 66.0 to 13.8.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 46.1 | 24.4 |
| Rank | 66 | 348 |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $1 | — |
| Output $/M | $3.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)
- Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1461 | 683 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.1% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1434 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 69.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 48.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 765.62 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)
- Llama 13b: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 52.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 82.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 73.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 86.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,432 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)
- Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | 728 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.83 | 100.58 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 44.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 10% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 37.9% |
| ForecastBench | 61 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 79.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 75.2% |
| PIQA | — | 80.1% |
| WinoGrande | — | 73% |

## Math

- GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)
- Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1440 | 838 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 65.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 16.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 20.6% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)
- Llama 13b: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 52.7% |
| BoolQ | — | 78.7% |
| MMLU | — | 47.7% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 56.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 77.9% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-5: —
- Llama 13b: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 43.3% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)
- Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 819 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | — |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena German | 1445 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1454 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)
- Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1428 | 781 |

## Long Context

- GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)
- Llama 13b: —

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 18.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)
- Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312)

| Benchmark | GLM-5 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1446 | 834 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 794 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 753 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1601 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-5 better than Llama 13b?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-5 or Llama 13b better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-5 and Llama 13b share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5 has 45 scored results on Noometry and Llama 13b has 21.