Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2B vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2B Google

29.6

Rank #307 Confirmed

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.4 to 24.0.

Side by side

Gemma 2BGLM-5.2
ProviderGoogleZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index29.651.1
Released2024-02-212026-06-13
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.40
Output $ / M tokens—$4.40
Results tracked2351

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Coding10101485
SWE-bench Verified—78.7%
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
LMArena WebDev—1603
SciCode—50.5%
WeirdML—70.1%
ALE-Bench—1,047
HumanEval+20.7%—
MBPP+34.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-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 2B: 18.8 (#275), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Hard Prompts9891480
Epoch Capabilities Index94.2151.78
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%
BIG-Bench Hard35.2%—
HellaSwag71.4%—
PIQA77.3%—
WinoGrande65.4%—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Math10091482
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%
GSM8K17.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
GPQA Diamond—91.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%
LMArena Expert—1486
ARC (AI2) Challenge42.1%—
BoolQ69.4%—
MMLU42.3%—
TriviaQA53.2%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English9581459
LMArena Chinese9861519
LMArena Russian9371466
LMArena French—1479
LMArena German—1468
LMArena Japanese—1451
LMArena Korean—1445
LMArena Spanish—1477

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following9701465

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query9811479

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

BenchmarkGemma 2BGLM-5.2
LMArena Text10021470
LMArena Creative Writing9871462
LMArena Multi-Turn9451469
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1757
EQ-Bench 4—1222

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2B or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.

Related comparisons

Go deeper