Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs GLM-4.7-Flash

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 36.1 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index29.438.8
Released2024-06-242026-01-19
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window8K200K
Max output2K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.06
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$0.40
Results tracked3421

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Coding12111383
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11981356
Chess Puzzles—0%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%58.3%
LMArena Math12121355
LiveBench Math26.5%—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
GPQA Diamond36.5%60.5%
LMArena Expert11721357
Confabulations27.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Non-English12171330
LMArena Chinese12211403
LMArena French12471332
LMArena German12091337
LMArena Korean11741283
LMArena Russian12341332
LMArena Spanish12281350
LMArena Japanese1175—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12061327
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12311345

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Text12311351
LMArena Creative Writing12411297
LMArena Multi-Turn12241342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1125
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Is Gemma 2 27B or GLM-4.7-Flash better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and GLM-4.7-Flash share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper