Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 1.1 7b IT vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 1.1 7b IT Google

30.7

Rank #275 Confirmed

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

50.9

Rank #38 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 7b IT scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.7 to 30.6.

Side by side

Gemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index30.750.9
Released—2026-06-13
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$4.40
Results tracked1950

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 31.0 (#279), GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Coding10841484
SWE-bench Verified—78.7%
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
LMArena WebDev—1604
SciCode—50.5%
WeirdML—70.1%
ALE-Bench—1,047
HumanEval+35.4%—
MBPP+45%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: —, GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
τ²-bench Banking—37.1%
PostTrainBench—31.7%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—8,314

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 19.6 (#235), GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Hard Prompts10711480
ARC-AGI-2—22.8%
SimpleBench—58.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—62.6%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.3%
ARC-AGI-1—77%
CritPt—20.9%
Chess Puzzles—21%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—19%
DTBench—93.6%
LMCA—45.8%
Surface Evolver Bench—55.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—151.76

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 29.5 (#217), GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Math11071482
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—59.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4—29.3%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.6%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.4%
ProofBench—35%

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 27.8 (#242), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Expert10391484
GPQA Diamond—91.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 28.3 (#268), GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English10521459
LMArena Chinese10601518
LMArena French10641476
LMArena German10541470
LMArena Japanese9711451
LMArena Korean9881445
LMArena Russian10461467
LMArena Spanish10491477

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 54.3 (#278), GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following10571465

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 32.0 (#267), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query10561479

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 1.1 7b IT: 30.6 (#283), GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20)

BenchmarkGemma 1.1 7b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Text10941470
LMArena Creative Writing10591465
LMArena Multi-Turn10401468
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1757
EQ-Bench 4—1222

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 1.1 7b IT better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 1.1 7b IT or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 31.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 7b IT and GLM-5.2 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 7b IT has 19 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 50.

Related comparisons

Go deeper