Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Granite 3.1 8b Instruct

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct IBM

32.4

Rank #258 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6 leads 61.1 to 35.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 72.4% for GLM-4.6 and 27.1% for Granite 3.1 8b Instruct.

Side by side

GLM-4.6 and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct specifications
GLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)IBM
Noometry Index41.432.4
Released2025-09-30—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked2913

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 34.5 (#233)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Coding14491186
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1340—
SciCode38.4%—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 24.1 (#120)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%27.1%
Terminal-Bench24.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 22.1 (#207)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14401145
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
CritPt1.1%—

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 33.0 (#209)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Math14321152
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#220)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Expert14311142
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.9 (#260)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14261099
LMArena Chinese14991145
LMArena Russian14191092
LMArena French1459—
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Japanese1393—
LMArena Korean1400—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.6 (#259)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14101131

Long Context GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#241)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14221162

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.5 (#266)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Granite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Text14401150
LMArena Creative Writing14111129
LMArena Multi-Turn14271108
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Granite 3.1 8b Instruct?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.6 or Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 34.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper