Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Llama 2-70B

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Llama 2-70B Meta

24.4

Rank #349 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-70B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3 leads 62.3 to 8.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 91.1% for GLM-5.3 and 0% for Llama 2-70B.

Side by side

GLM-5.3 and Llama 2-70B specifications
GLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index54.824.4
Released2026-08-142023-07-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked4235

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
LMArena Coding14961079
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
LMArena WebDev1622—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Llama 2-70B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts14891073
DTBench87.7%41.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.61113.79
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
BIG-Bench Hard—64.9%
CommonsenseQA 2.0—50%
ForecastBench—51.4
HellaSwag—85.3%
LAMBADA—78.9%
PIQA—82.8%
WinoGrande—80.2%

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%0%
LMArena Math14891091
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
ProofBench49%—
MATH Level 5—3.3%
GSM8K—69.6%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
GPQA Diamond90.9%26.3%
LMArena Expert15161039
SimpleQA Verified41%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—78.3%
BoolQ—88.6%
MMLU—69.9%
OpenBookQA—60.2%
TriviaQA—87.6%

Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
LMArena Non-English14571045
LMArena Chinese1528995
LMArena French14991090
LMArena German14991041
LMArena Japanese1453927
LMArena Korean1472964
LMArena Russian14631083
LMArena Spanish14601143

Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
LMArena Instruction Following14771071

Long Context GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
LMArena Longer Query14821062

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Llama 2-70B
LMArena Text14711115
LMArena Creative Writing14571075
LMArena Multi-Turn14721088
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Llama 2-70B?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.3 or Llama 2-70B better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Llama 2-70B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper