Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs GLM-4.5V

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.5V in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5V leads 37.4 to 10.7.
  • Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
  • GLM-4.5V accepts more context: 64K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index29.439.8
Released2024-06-242025-08-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K64K
Max output2K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$1.80
Results tracked3415

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Coding12111347
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Hard Prompts11981334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—59.8%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Math12121354
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%—
LiveBench Math26.5%—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Expert11721353
GPQA Diamond36.5%—
Confabulations27.1%—
MMLU75.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: —, GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Vision—1154

Multilingual GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Non-English12171303
LMArena Chinese12211337
LMArena Russian12341298
LMArena Spanish12281336
LMArena French1247—
LMArena German1209—
LMArena Japanese1175—
LMArena Korean1174—

Instruction Following GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Instruction Following12061311
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—

Long Context GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Longer Query12311304

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5V leads

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.5V
LMArena Text12311333
LMArena Creative Writing12411295
LMArena Multi-Turn12241332
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than GLM-4.5V?

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.

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

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.5V does, with 64K tokens against 8K.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5V has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper