Model comparison

GPT-5 Nano vs Wizardlm 70b

GPT-5 Nano and Wizardlm 70b score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.4 vs 32.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5 Nano OpenAI

33.4

Rank #234 Confirmed

Wizardlm 70b Microsoft

32.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5 Nano scores higher in 4 categories and Wizardlm 70b in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in instruction following, where GPT-5 Nano leads 75.2 to 56.5.
  • Wizardlm 70b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5 Nano and Wizardlm 70b specifications
GPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
ProviderOpenAIMicrosoft
Noometry Index33.432.4
Released2025-08-07—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window400K—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.05—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked4812

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5 Nano leads

GPT-5 Nano: 33.3 (#248), Wizardlm 70b: 30.9 (#280)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Coding13511081
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)34.8%—
WeirdML38.1%—
ALE-Bench718.67—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5 Nano: 25.6 (#99), Wizardlm 70b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
Terminal-Bench21.8%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard51.5%—

Reasoning Wizardlm 70b leads

GPT-5 Nano: 16.4 (#291), Wizardlm 70b: 19.8 (#231)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Hard Prompts13291079
ARC-AGI-22.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.2%—
ARC-AGI-120.7%—
Chess Puzzles27%—
Mystery Game Puzzles9%—
DTBench62.7%—
LMCA7.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index139.39—
ForecastBench59.1—

Math Too close to call

GPT-5 Nano: 29.1 (#221), Wizardlm 70b: 29.7 (#216)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Math13181116
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)20%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202581.1%—
ProofBench12%—
Omni-MATH54.6%—
MATH Level 595.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)8.3%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5 Nano: 35.8 (#166), Wizardlm 70b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
GPQA Diamond69.4%—
SimpleQA Verified11.7%—
MMLU-Pro77.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.5%—
GPQA (HELM)67.9%—
LMArena Expert1321—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5 Nano: 30.7 (#102), Wizardlm 70b: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Vision1159—
VPCT37.2%—

Multilingual GPT-5 Nano leads

GPT-5 Nano: 45.5 (#167), Wizardlm 70b: 29.8 (#260)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Non-English13131078
LMArena Chinese13551052
LMArena German13291083
LMArena Russian12961155
LMArena Korean1269—
LMArena Spanish1360—

Instruction Following GPT-5 Nano leads

GPT-5 Nano: 75.2 (#72), Wizardlm 70b: 56.5 (#268)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Instruction Following13061093
IFEval93.2%—

Long Context Wizardlm 70b leads

GPT-5 Nano: 31.3 (#275), Wizardlm 70b: 33.3 (#258)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Longer Query13131097
Fiction.LiveBench44.4%—

Writing & Preference GPT-5 Nano leads

GPT-5 Nano: 39.4 (#244), Wizardlm 70b: 34.9 (#264)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5 NanoWizardlm 70b
LMArena Text13201120
LMArena Creative Writing12501149
LMArena Multi-Turn13111108
EQ-Bench Creative Writing705—
WildBench80.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5 Nano better than Wizardlm 70b?

GPT-5 Nano and Wizardlm 70b score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.4 vs 32.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is GPT-5 Nano or Wizardlm 70b better for coding?

GPT-5 Nano scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.3 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5 Nano and Wizardlm 70b share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5 Nano has 48 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 70b has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper