Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs GLM-4.5

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #122 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.5 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5 leads 39.0 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Confabulations: 27.1% for Gemma 2 27B and 11.3% for GLM-4.5.
  • Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
  • GLM-4.5 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index29.442.0
Released2024-06-242025-07-27
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K131K
Max output2K98K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$2.20
Results tracked3427

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Coding12111434
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—54.2%
WeirdML—40.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—
ALE-Bench—344.82
AlgoTune—1.52

Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Hard Prompts11981429
Kagi LLM Benchmark—57.9%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Math12121427
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%—
LiveBench Math26.5%—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
Confabulations27.1%11.3%
LMArena Expert11721433
GPQA Diamond36.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam—8.3%
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Non-English12171417
LMArena Chinese12211465
LMArena French12471418
LMArena German12091407
LMArena Japanese11751415
LMArena Korean11741380
LMArena Russian12341414
LMArena Spanish12281454

Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Instruction Following12061404
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—

Long Context Too close to call

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Longer Query12311412
Fiction.LiveBench—58.3%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5
LMArena Text12311430
LMArena Creative Writing12411395
LMArena Multi-Turn12241415
Short-Story Creative Writing—73.4%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1343
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than GLM-4.5?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or GLM-4.5?

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is Gemma 2 27B or GLM-4.5 better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.5 does, with 131K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and GLM-4.5 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5 has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper