Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs GLM-4.6V
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6V in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 38.0 to 19.0.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- GLM-4.6V accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2025-12-08 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 128K |
| Max output | 2K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.90 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1390 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1368 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), GLM-4.6V: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1371 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1340 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1352 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than GLM-4.6V?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or GLM-4.6V?
GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.
Is Gemma 2 27B or GLM-4.6V better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-4.6V does, with 128K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and GLM-4.6V share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.