Model comparison

Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 1.1 2b IT Google

29.3

Rank #313 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 25.1.

Side by side

Gemma 1.1 2b IT and GLM-4.7 specifications
Gemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index29.342.0
Released—2025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$2.20
Results tracked1636

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Coding10341454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
ALE-Bench—399.48
HumanEval+17.7%—
MBPP+23.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts10051443
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.51

Math GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Math10471423
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Expert9701424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English9881417
LMArena Chinese10121495
LMArena German9441424
LMArena Korean8991399
LMArena Russian9901423
LMArena French—1432
LMArena Japanese—1439
LMArena Spanish—1434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following9921411

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query10031432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 1.1 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Text10221435
LMArena Creative Writing9981401
LMArena Multi-Turn9591446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and GLM-4.7 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper