Model comparison

Gemma 2 2b IT vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 33.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 2b IT Google

33.1

Rank #248 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 36.5.

Side by side

Gemma 2 2b IT and GLM-4.7 specifications
Gemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index33.142.0
Released—2025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$2.20
Results tracked1736

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Coding11121454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
ALE-Bench—399.48

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 2b IT: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts11131443
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.51

Math GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Math11351423
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Expert10961424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English11211417
LMArena Chinese11321495
LMArena French11571432
LMArena German11141424
LMArena Japanese10831439
LMArena Korean10551399
LMArena Russian11181423
LMArena Spanish11401434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following11181411

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query11301432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-4.7
LMArena Text11561435
LMArena Creative Writing11471401
LMArena Multi-Turn11181446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 33.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2 2b IT or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and GLM-4.7 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper