Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 5.3 vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 27 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
70.6
Overall
44.8
Output $/M
$4.40
27
Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
5.7
Output $/M
$0.3325
0
vs boards won of 27 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 13.2x less.

Shared results
27
GLM 5.3 only
73
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
7
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GLM 5.3 70.6 from 6 benchmarks, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 66.9 points apart on average over 13 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Chinese: GLM 5.3 1532 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 1017, 85.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 5.3 $4.40 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 per million output tokens, 13.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 5.3 takes 1.05M tokens, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGLM 5.3BarsLlama 3.2 3B InstructTies
Coding20
Intelligence10
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge40
General130
All shared boards270
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
LiveBench coding82.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev1621Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
AA Coding Index74.8Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)38.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)78.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)44.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)1.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
IOI (Vals AI)68.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)71.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)20.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)47.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)72.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured8.3%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
SciCode59.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierCode40.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierSWE30.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
WeirdML75.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ALE-Bench1317.4Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: coding14971098GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: software and IT14931103GLM 5.3
LMArena WebDev: React1641Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1595Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index44.85.7GLM 5.3
Epoch Capabilities Index156.0Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index53.1Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1194Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1189Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1255Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench research73.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench browser0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench long agentic35.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)9.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)55.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)39.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)49.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)14.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)56.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured21.1%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
APEX-Agents56.6%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
BALROGNot measured10.1%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Vending-Bench 2$8,164Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond88.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench reasoning85.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)23.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)91.7%25.5%GLM 5.3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.3%5.3%GLM 5.3
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)90.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Chess puzzles37.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Mystery game puzzles33.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14901095GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: expert15141090GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14961141GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured3.3Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.3%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME91.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 368.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tier 429.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
ProofBench49.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: math14951126GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: mathematical work14971128GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro86.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)84.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)42.9%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.7%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
SimpleQA Verified41.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: science14981106GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14811104GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: legal and government14731115GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: business and finance14591074GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1295Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: UI components1314Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: game dev1311Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: data viz1259Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: 3D1332Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1304Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: SVG1293Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1213Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench design77.3%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index130
General benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
Vals Index59.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench data analysis70.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)68.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)88.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
IFBenchNot measured26.2%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.7%4.3%GLM 5.3
DTBench87.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMCA55.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text14741110GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: instruction following14791089GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: creative writing14581094GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: English14821180GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: non-English14591019GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Chinese15321017GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: German14881056GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Japanese1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1460Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: French1503Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1462Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1469949GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: Polish1466Not measuredOnly GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14721105GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: longer queries14831100GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: writing and language14691096GLM 5.3
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14471083GLM 5.3
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 5.3Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.0036Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0002Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.083Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0035Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 5.3$0.324Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.013Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GLM 5.3 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 5.3Meta Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
MakerZ.aiMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 18, 2026September 25, 2024
Context window1.05M131K
Input $/Mtok$1.40$0.0505
Output $/Mtok$4.40$0.3325
Coding index70.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it60
Cost per solved task$0.36Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 5.3 better than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for coding?

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 13.2x less.

Which is cheaper, GLM 5.3 or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

GLM 5.3 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.0505 and $0.3325. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.3 or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

GLM 5.3, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.3 vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct comparison based on?

27 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.3's coding index rests on 6 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next