Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 31.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat NVIDIA

31.8

Rank #268 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6 leads 61.1 to 31.6.

Side by side

GLM-4.6 and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat specifications
GLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)NVIDIA
Noometry Index41.431.8
Released2025-09-30—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked299

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 29.9 (#300)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Coding14491025
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
LMArena WebDev1340—
SciCode38.4%—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 20.0 (#246)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Hard Prompts14401047
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—
CritPt1.1%—

Math GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 31.3 (#226)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Math14321072
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—
LMArena Expert1431—

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 28.8 (#270)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Non-English14261063
LMArena Chinese1499—
LMArena French1459—
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Japanese1393—
LMArena Korean1400—
LMArena Russian1419—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 54.2 (#279)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Instruction Following14101060

Long Context GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 30.4 (#288)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Longer Query1422998

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 31.6 (#283)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Text14401098
LMArena Creative Writing14111091
LMArena Multi-Turn14271058
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 31.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.6 or Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 29.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper