Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 2b IT vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 33.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 2b IT Google

33.1

Rank #248 Confirmed

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.4 to 36.5.

Side by side

Gemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index33.151.1
Released—2026-06-13
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$4.40
Results tracked1751

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Coding11121485
SWE-bench Verified—78.7%
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
LMArena WebDev—1603
SciCode—50.5%
WeirdML—70.1%
ALE-Bench—1,047

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 2b IT: —, GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
APEX-Agents—45.2%
τ²-bench Banking—37.1%
PostTrainBench—31.7%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—8,314

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Hard Prompts11131480
ARC-AGI-2—22.8%
SimpleBench—58.8%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—62.6%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.3%
ARC-AGI-1—77%
CritPt—20.9%
Chess Puzzles—21%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—19%
DTBench—93.6%
LMCA—45.8%
Surface Evolver Bench—55.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—151.78

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Math11351482
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—59.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4—29.3%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.6%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.4%
ProofBench—35%

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Expert10961486
GPQA Diamond—91.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English11211459
LMArena Chinese11321519
LMArena French11571479
LMArena German11141468
LMArena Japanese10831451
LMArena Korean10551445
LMArena Russian11181466
LMArena Spanish11401477

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following11181465

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query11301479

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

BenchmarkGemma 2 2b ITGLM-5.2
LMArena Text11561470
LMArena Creative Writing11471462
LMArena Multi-Turn11181469
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1757
EQ-Bench 4—1222

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 33.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2 2b IT or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and GLM-5.2 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.

Related comparisons

Go deeper