Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 50.2.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1347 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1322 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1308 |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1268 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1299 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-4.6V or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.