Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3 vs WizardLM-2 8x22B

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#25); WizardLM-2 8x22B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.6

Rank #25 Confirmed

WizardLM-2 8x22B Microsoft

30.7

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 2 categories and WizardLM-2 8x22B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.3 leads 62.1 to 26.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.9% for GLM-5.3 and 43.4% for WizardLM-2 8x22B.
  • WizardLM-2 8x22B is cheaper at $0.62 / $0.62 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
  • GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 66K.

Side by side

GLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Microsoft
Noometry Index54.630.7
Released2026-08-142024-04-15
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M66K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$1.40$0.62
Output $ / M tokens$4.40$0.62
Results tracked412

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 59.0 (#12), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
DeepSWE69%—
FrontierCode40.1%—
LMArena WebDev1623—
FrontierSWE30.2%—
SciCode59%—
WeirdML75.4%—
LMArena Coding1499—
ALE-Bench1,317—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 36.3 (#34), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
APEX-Agents56.6%—
Vending-Bench 28,164—

Reasoning Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.2 (#42), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
NYT Connections (extended)74.2%—
CritPt19.1%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1491—
Mystery Game Puzzles33%—
DTBench87.7%—
LMCA55.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.56—

Math GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 62.1 (#27), WizardLM-2 8x22B: 26.8

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)68.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%—
ProofBench49%—
LMArena Math1493—
MATH Level 5—25.7%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#34), WizardLM-2 8x22B: 23.3

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
GPQA Diamond90.9%43.4%
SimpleQA Verified41%—
LMArena Expert1512—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 55.9 (#27), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Non-English1457—
LMArena Chinese1523—
LMArena French1499—
LMArena German1505—
LMArena Japanese1438—
LMArena Korean1478—
LMArena Russian1460—
LMArena Spanish1444—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 77.8 (#15), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Instruction Following1481—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 45.5 (#32), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Longer Query1485—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3: 75.9 (#6), WizardLM-2 8x22B: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3WizardLM-2 8x22B
LMArena Text1473—
LMArena Creative Writing1459—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2075—
LMArena Multi-Turn1473—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3 better than WizardLM-2 8x22B?

GLM-5.3 has enough public results to be ranked (#25); WizardLM-2 8x22B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 or WizardLM-2 8x22B?

WizardLM-2 8x22B is cheaper. It lists at $0.62 per million input tokens and $0.62 per million output tokens; GLM-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 66K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and WizardLM-2 8x22B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 41 scored results on Noometry and WizardLM-2 8x22B has 2.

Related comparisons

Go deeper