Model comparison

Dolly 2.0-12b vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Dolly 2.0-12b Databricks

25.5

Rank #342 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Dolly 2.0-12b scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 15.2.

Side by side

Dolly 2.0-12b and GLM-4.7 specifications
Dolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
ProviderDatabricksZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index25.542.0
Released2023-04-112025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$2.20
Results tracked1736

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Dolly 2.0-12b: 23.4 (#332), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
LMArena Coding7761454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
ALE-Bench—399.48

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Dolly 2.0-12b: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.3 (#316), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts8041443
Epoch Capabilities Index89.67143.51
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
HellaSwag70.8%—
PIQA75.4%—
WinoGrande61.8%—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

Dolly 2.0-12b: 27.3 (#251), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
LMArena Math8711423
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Not comparable

Dolly 2.0-12b: —, GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%
LMArena Expert—1424
ARC (AI2) Challenge39.6%—
BoolQ56.3%—
MMLU26.2%—
OpenBookQA39.2%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

Dolly 2.0-12b: 17.4 (#296), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English8361417
LMArena Chinese8361495
LMArena French—1432
LMArena German—1424
LMArena Japanese—1439
LMArena Korean—1399
LMArena Russian—1423
LMArena Spanish—1434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Dolly 2.0-12b: 38.7 (#304), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following8141411

Long Context Not comparable

Dolly 2.0-12b: —, GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%
LMArena Longer Query—1432

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.2 (#311), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDolly 2.0-12bGLM-4.7
LMArena Text8511435
LMArena Creative Writing8641401
LMArena Multi-Turn7401446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413

Frequently asked questions

Is Dolly 2.0-12b better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Dolly 2.0-12b or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 23.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Dolly 2.0-12b and GLM-4.7 share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Dolly 2.0-12b has 17 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper