Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 3.0 2b Instruct

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct IBM

30.8

Rank #286 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.5 to 27.0.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-Flash and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct specifications
GLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)IBM
Noometry Index38.830.8
Released2026-01-19—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.06—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked2113

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 28.3 (#316)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Coding13831090
BigCodeBench Instruct—20.5%

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 20.5 (#235)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts13561073
Chess Puzzles0%—

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 32.2 (#217)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Math13551117
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 29.0 (#241)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Expert13571064
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 27.0 (#278)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Non-English13301033
LMArena Chinese14031070
LMArena Russian13321045
LMArena French1332—
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Korean1283—
LMArena Spanish1350—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 53.9 (#284)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following13271056

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 32.5 (#268)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query13451070

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 29.6 (#292)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Text13511080
LMArena Creative Writing12971046
LMArena Multi-Turn13421053
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Granite 3.0 2b Instruct?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Granite 3.0 2b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 28.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper