Model comparison
GLM-5.2 vs Llama 2-7B
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.4 to 28.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 21% for GLM-5.2 and 0% for Llama 2-7B.
Side by side
| GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 51.1 | 29.1 |
| Released | 2026-06-13 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 51 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41), Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | 1002 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1603 | — |
| SciCode | 50.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 70.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,047 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63), Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 45.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 37.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 31.7% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,314 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1480 | 1009 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.78 | 99.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 22.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 77% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 93.6% | — |
| LMCA | 45.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 55.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |
Math GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1482 | 1042 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 35% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |
Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1486 | 1036 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| MMLU | — | 45.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.2: —, Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |
Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1459 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1519 | 973 |
| LMArena French | 1479 | 970 |
| LMArena German | 1468 | 978 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 995 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1477 | 1007 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1445 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1006 |
Long Context GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 999 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads
GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.2 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1470 | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1462 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1469 | 1029 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1757 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1222 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.2 better than Llama 2-7B?
GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is GLM-5.2 or Llama 2-7B better for coding?
GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Llama 2-7B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.