Noometry

Model comparison

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b vs GLM-5.3

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b Cohere

35.9

Rank #221 Confirmed

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3 leads 75.7 to 42.2.
  • GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

C4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index35.954.8
Released2024-10-242026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K1M
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$4.40
Results tracked1842

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.8 (#231), GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Coding11971496
DeepSWE—69%
FrontierCode—40.1%
CursorBench—42.6%
LMArena WebDev—1622
FrontierSWE—30.2%
SciCode—59%
WeirdML—75.4%
ALE-Bench—1,317

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: —, GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
APEX-Agents—56.6%
Vending-Bench 2—8,164

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 23.3 (#180), GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Hard Prompts11931489
NYT Connections (extended)—74.2%
CritPt—19.1%
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—33%
DTBench—87.7%
LMCA—55.5%
Bench to the Future 3—0.15
Epoch Capabilities Index—155.61

Math GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 34.0 (#197), GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Math12001489
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—68.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4—29.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
ProofBench—49%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 33.2 (#206), GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Expert11821516
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—41%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—

Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 38.4 (#230), GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Non-English12131457
LMArena Chinese12111528
LMArena French12481499
LMArena German11991499
LMArena Japanese11631453
LMArena Korean11581472
LMArena Russian12271463
LMArena Spanish11931460

Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 62.6 (#237), GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Instruction Following11961477

Long Context GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 37.2 (#220), GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Longer Query12281482

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

C4ai Aya Expanse 32b: 42.2 (#235), GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6)

BenchmarkC4ai Aya Expanse 32bGLM-5.3
LMArena Text12241471
LMArena Creative Writing12001457
LMArena Multi-Turn11901472
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—2075

Frequently asked questions

Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b better than GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is C4ai Aya Expanse 32b or GLM-5.3 better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 34.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do C4ai Aya Expanse 32b and GLM-5.3 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. C4ai Aya Expanse 32b has 18 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3 has 42.

Related comparisons

Go deeper