Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs GLM-4.6V
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in long context, where GLM-4.6V leads 41.3 to 29.2.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-12-08 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.90 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1390 |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1368 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), GLM-4.6V: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1371 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1340 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1352 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1360 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than GLM-4.6V?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or GLM-4.6V better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and GLM-4.6V share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.