Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 2-13B

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Llama 2-13B Meta

29.6

Rank #309 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-13B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.5 to 26.5.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index38.829.6
Released2026-01-192023-07-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.06—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked2132

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), Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Coding13831062

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
Chess Puzzles0%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts13561051
DTBench—42.2%
BIG-Bench Hard—58.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—106.17
HellaSwag—80.7%
LAMBADA—76.5%
PIQA—80.8%
WinoGrande—72.8%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Math13551065
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
GSM8K—36.9%

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Expert13571030
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—60.3%
BoolQ—82.4%
MMLU—55.6%
OpenBookQA—57%
TriviaQA—79.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 2-13B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
ScienceQA—55.8%

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Non-English13301024
LMArena Chinese14031001
LMArena French13321044
LMArena German13371009
LMArena Korean1283953
LMArena Russian13321055
LMArena Spanish13501087
LMArena Japanese—894

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Instruction Following13271045

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Longer Query13451064

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-13B
LMArena Text13511084
LMArena Creative Writing12971047
LMArena Multi-Turn13421050
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 2-13B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 2-13B better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 2-13B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-13B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper