Model comparison

Gemma 2B vs GLM-5

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2B Google

29.6

Rank #307 Confirmed

GLM-5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

46.1

Rank #66 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5 leads 66.0 to 24.0.

Side by side

Gemma 2B and GLM-5 specifications
Gemma 2BGLM-5
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index29.646.1
Released2024-02-212026-02-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—205K
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1
Output $ / M tokens—$3.20
Results tracked2345

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
LMArena Coding10101461
SWE-bench Verified—72.1%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—72.8%
LMArena WebDev—1434
SWE-bench Multilingual—69.7%
WeirdML—48.2%
ALE-Bench—765.62
HumanEval+20.7%—
MBPP+34.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
Terminal-Bench—52.4%
τ²-bench Airline—82.5%
τ²-bench Banking—9.8%
τ²-bench Retail—73.7%
τ²-bench Telecom—86.8%
Vending-Bench 2—4,432

Reasoning GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
LMArena Hard Prompts9891452
Epoch Capabilities Index94.2145.83
ARC-AGI-2—4.9%
SimpleBench—53.2%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—75%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
ARC-AGI-1—44.7%
Chess Puzzles—10%
BIG-Bench Hard35.2%—
ForecastBench—61
HellaSwag71.4%—
PIQA77.3%—
WinoGrande65.4%—

Math GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
GPQA Diamond—87.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.1%
LMArena Expert—1454
ARC (AI2) Challenge42.1%—
BoolQ69.4%—
MMLU42.3%—
TriviaQA53.2%—

Multilingual GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
LMArena Non-English9581430
LMArena Chinese9861511
LMArena Russian9371436
LMArena French—1455
LMArena German—1445
LMArena Japanese—1416
LMArena Korean—1423
LMArena Spanish—1454

Instruction Following GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
LMArena Instruction Following9701428

Long Context GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
LMArena Longer Query9811446
CL-bench—18.7%

Writing & Preference GLM-5 leads

Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5
LMArena Text10021446
LMArena Creative Writing9871439
LMArena Multi-Turn9451456
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1601

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-5?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2B or GLM-5 better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GLM-5 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5 has 45.

Related comparisons

Go deeper