Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs StarCoder 2 7B

GLM-5.3-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#45); StarCoder 2 7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

49.6

Rank #45 Confirmed

StarCoder 2 7B NVIDIA

36.5

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher in 1 category and StarCoder 2 7B in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 53.7 to 34.2.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)NVIDIA
Noometry Index49.636.5
Released2026-08-202024-02-20
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked367

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), StarCoder 2 7B: 34.2

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
LMArena WebDev1614—
SciCode51.6%—
LMArena Coding1506—
BigCodeBench Complete—27.7%
ALE-Bench303.55—
HumanEval+—29.9%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
Epoch Capabilities Index151.992.92
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1490—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
WinoGrande—57.1%

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—
LMArena Math1499—
GSM8K—32.7%

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
LMArena Expert1512—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—38.7%
MMLU—38.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
LMArena Vision1304—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
LMArena Non-English1462—
LMArena Chinese1529—
LMArena French1495—
LMArena German1457—
LMArena Japanese1420—
LMArena Korean1443—
LMArena Russian1472—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
LMArena Instruction Following1480—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
LMArena Longer Query1479—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49), StarCoder 2 7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashStarCoder 2 7B
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1440—
LMArena Multi-Turn1471—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than StarCoder 2 7B?

GLM-5.3-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#45); StarCoder 2 7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or StarCoder 2 7B better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and StarCoder 2 7B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 36 scored results on Noometry and StarCoder 2 7B has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper