Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 2-70B

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Llama 2-70B Meta

24.4

Rank #349 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-70B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 35.5 to 7.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 58.3% for GLM-4.7-Flash and 0% for Llama 2-70B.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index38.824.4
Released2026-01-192023-07-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.06—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked2135

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 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
LMArena Coding13831079

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts13561073
Chess Puzzles0%—
DTBench—41.6%
BIG-Bench Hard—64.9%
CommonsenseQA 2.0—50%
Epoch Capabilities Index—113.79
ForecastBench—51.4
HellaSwag—85.3%
LAMBADA—78.9%
PIQA—82.8%
WinoGrande—80.2%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%0%
LMArena Math13551091
MATH Level 5—3.3%
GSM8K—69.6%

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
GPQA Diamond60.5%26.3%
LMArena Expert13571039
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—78.3%
BoolQ—88.6%
MMLU—69.9%
OpenBookQA—60.2%
TriviaQA—87.6%

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
LMArena Non-English13301045
LMArena Chinese1403995
LMArena French13321090
LMArena German13371041
LMArena Korean1283964
LMArena Russian13321083
LMArena Spanish13501143
LMArena Japanese—927

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
LMArena Instruction Following13271071

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
LMArena Longer Query13451062

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-70B
LMArena Text13511115
LMArena Creative Writing12971075
LMArena Multi-Turn13421088
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 2-70B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 2-70B better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 2-70B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper