Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 9B vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 9B Google

25.7

Rank #334 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 9.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Gemma 2 9B and 83.3% for GLM-4.7.

Side by side

Gemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index25.741.7
Released2024-06-242025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$2.20
Results tracked3536

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 29.0 (#299), GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
LMArena Coding11741454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct34.7%—
LiveBench Coding22.5%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.6%—
ALE-Bench—399.48

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2 9B: —, GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306), GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts11721443
Epoch Capabilities Index119.78143.53
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
LiveBench Reasoning15.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis36.4%—
LiveBench28.7%—
PIQA83.7%—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312), GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%83.3%
LMArena Math11831423
ProofBench—6%
LiveBench Math19.8%—
MATH Level 521%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K84.9%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
GPQA Diamond27.5%83.3%
LMArena Expert11471424
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%
BoolQ85.7%—
MMLU72.1%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233), GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English11881417
LMArena Chinese11851495
LMArena French11891432
LMArena German11861426
LMArena Japanese11441439
LMArena Korean11371401
LMArena Russian12001423
LMArena Spanish12001433

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264), GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following11781411
LiveBench Instruction Following52.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query11971432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276), GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BGLM-4.7
LMArena Text12071436
LMArena Creative Writing12061401
EQ-Bench Creative Writing8411413
LMArena Multi-Turn11931446
LiveBench Language25.5%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 9B better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2 9B or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 29.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and GLM-4.7 share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper