Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs GLM-4.6
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in long context, where GLM-4.6 leads 43.4 to 29.1.
- GLM-4.6 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-09-30 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 205K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.20 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182), GLM-4.6: 39.9 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 55.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1339 |
| SciCode | — | 38.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1449 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 340.82 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GLM-4.6: 32.1 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 24.5% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 72.4% |
Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), GLM-4.6: 23.1 (#168)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 47.4% |
| CritPt | — | 1.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1440 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), GLM-4.6: 36.4 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1431 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 3.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), GLM-4.6: 39.6 (#118)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1432 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GLM-4.6: 53.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1426 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1500 |
| LMArena French | — | 1459 |
| LMArena German | — | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1394 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1418 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1436 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), GLM-4.6: 74.5 (#93)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1410 |
Long Context GLM-4.6 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#91)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1423 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), GLM-4.6: 61.3 (#86)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1440 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1411 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1411 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1427 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than GLM-4.6?
GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or GLM-4.6 better for coding?
GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.9 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and GLM-4.6 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6 has 29.