Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs Phi-1.5

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#26); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Phi-1.5 Microsoft

—

Unranked

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both.

Side by side

GLM-5.3 and Phi-1.5 specifications
GLM-5.3Phi-1.5
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index54.8—
Released2026-08-142023-09-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked427

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), Phi-1.5: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
CursorBench42.6%—
LMArena WebDev1622—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
LMArena Coding1496—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), Phi-1.5: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), Phi-1.5: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
Epoch Capabilities Index155.6191.53
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1489—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
HellaSwag—47.6%
WinoGrande—73.4%

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), Phi-1.5: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%—
ProofBench49%—
LMArena Math1489—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), Phi-1.5: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
GPQA Diamond90.9%—
SimpleQA Verified41%—
LMArena Expert1516—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—44.4%
BoolQ—75.8%
MMLU—37.6%
OpenBookQA—37.2%

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), Phi-1.5: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
LMArena Non-English1457—
LMArena Chinese1528—
LMArena French1499—
LMArena German1499—
LMArena Japanese1453—
LMArena Korean1472—
LMArena Russian1463—
LMArena Spanish1460—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), Phi-1.5: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), Phi-1.5: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), Phi-1.5: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.3Phi-1.5
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1457—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
LMArena Multi-Turn1472—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than Phi-1.5?

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#26); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and Phi-1.5 share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper