Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 2-7B

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B 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 23.8.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Meta
Noometry Index38.829.1
Released2026-01-192023-07-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.06—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked2129

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 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Coding13831002

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
Chess Puzzles0%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts13561009
BIG-Bench Hard—39.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—99.06
HellaSwag—77.2%
LAMBADA—73.3%
PIQA—78.8%
WinoGrande—69.2%

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Math13551042
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
GSM8K—16.7%

Knowledge GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Expert13571036
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—45.9%
BoolQ—77.9%
MMLU—45.8%
OpenBookQA—58.6%
TriviaQA—73.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, Llama 2-7B: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
ScienceQA—43.1%

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Non-English1330973
LMArena Chinese1403973
LMArena French1332970
LMArena German1337978
LMArena Russian1332995
LMArena Spanish13501007
LMArena Korean1283—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Instruction Following13271006

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Longer Query1345999

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashLlama 2-7B
LMArena Text13511053
LMArena Creative Writing12971033
LMArena Multi-Turn13421029
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 2-7B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 2-7B better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 2-7B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper