Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 67.2 to 24.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 47.6 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 200K |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1486 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1509 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 57.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | 149.86 |
| SimpleBench | — | 55.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1472 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1477 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1448 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1516 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1453 |
| LMArena French | — | 1478 |
| LMArena German | — | 1466 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1436 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1467 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1451 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1467 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1462 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1454 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1473 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GLM-5.1 share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.