Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs GLM-4.6V
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6V in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 24.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2025-12-08 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.90 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1390 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1368 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), GLM-4.6V: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1371 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1340 |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1352 |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1360 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-4.6V?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or GLM-4.6V better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GLM-4.6V share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.