Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Olmo 3 32b Think

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

49.6

Rank #45 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.1

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 34.4.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index49.638.1
Released2026-08-20—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3614

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding15061318
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
LMArena WebDev1614—
SciCode51.6%—
ALE-Bench303.55—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69), Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14901302
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.9—

Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38), Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math14991315
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—

Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33), Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert15121272
GPQA Diamond90.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1304—

Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14621255
LMArena Chinese15291300
LMArena French14951291
LMArena German14571290
LMArena Russian14721255
LMArena Japanese1420—
LMArena Korean1443—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14801275

Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14791296

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text14711300
LMArena Creative Writing14401256
LMArena Multi-Turn14711289

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 36 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper