Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek LLM 67B vs GLM-5.3-Flash

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 24.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek LLM 67B DeepSeek

24.8

Rank #341 Confirmed

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

49.6

Rank #45 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 7.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.8% for DeepSeek LLM 67B and 93.9% for GLM-5.3-Flash.

Side by side

DeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
ProviderDeepSeekZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index24.849.6
Released2023-11-292026-08-20
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.15
Output $ / M tokens—$0.50
Results tracked1536

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.3 (#273), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Coding10961506
DeepSWE—63.4%
FrontierCode—31.8%
LMArena WebDev—1614
SciCode—51.6%
ALE-Bench—303.55

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
APEX-Agents—52.8%
GDP.pdf—14%

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 15.9 (#300), GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
Chess Puzzles0%14%
LMArena Hard Prompts10701490
Epoch Capabilities Index110.54151.9
CritPt—15.4%
Mystery Game Puzzles—8%
Surface Evolver Bench—52.5%
Bench to the Future 3—0.15

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.1 (#318), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.8%93.9%
LMArena Math11081499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—55.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4—17.1%
ProofBench—21%
MATH Level 56.4%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.1 (#308), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
GPQA Diamond24.6%90.2%
LMArena Expert—1512

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Vision—1304

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.5 (#262), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Non-English10731462
LMArena Chinese11321529
LMArena French—1495
LMArena German—1457
LMArena Japanese—1420
LMArena Korean—1443
LMArena Russian—1472
LMArena Spanish—1471

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.7 (#272), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following10791480

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#260), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Longer Query10921479

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.8 (#277), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49)

BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BGLM-5.3-Flash
LMArena Text11051471
LMArena Creative Writing10671440
LMArena Multi-Turn10821471

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 24.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 31.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and GLM-5.3-Flash share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper