Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 34.1.

Side by side

GLM-4.7 and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct specifications
GLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)IBM
Noometry Index42.033.2
Released2025-12-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.60—
Output $ / M tokens$2.20—
Results tracked3612

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Coding14541149
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14431138
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Math14231159
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Expert14241131
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14171068
LMArena Chinese14951139
LMArena Russian14231063
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1424—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1399—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14111116

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14321155
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.7Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Text14351127
LMArena Creative Writing14011116
LMArena Multi-Turn14461099
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-4.7 or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper