Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GLM-5.1 leads 49.7 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B and 93.3% for GLM-5.1.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 47.8 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 200K |
| Max output | 2K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1485 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1508 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 57.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 149.84 |
| SimpleBench | — | 55.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 89.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1476 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1515 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1474 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1469 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1451 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1466 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1453 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1472 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or GLM-5.1?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; GLM-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is Gemma 2 27B or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and GLM-5.1 share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.