Model comparison

GLM-5.2 vs Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

50.9

Rank #38 Confirmed

Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat NVIDIA

31.2

Rank #265 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.2 scores higher in 7 categories and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.2 leads 70.7 to 31.8.

Side by side

GLM-5.2 and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat specifications
GLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)NVIDIA
Noometry Index50.931.2
Released2026-06-13—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.40—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked509

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 29.3 (#295)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Coding14841025
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
DeepSWE43.8%—
FrontierCode24.5%—
LMArena WebDev1604—
SciCode50.5%—
WeirdML70.1%—
ALE-Bench1,047—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
τ²-bench Banking37.1%—
PostTrainBench31.7%—
GBAEval0%—
Vending-Bench 28,314—

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 19.1 (#245)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Hard Prompts14801047
ARC-AGI-222.8%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark62.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)74.3%—
ARC-AGI-177%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles21%—
EBR-Bench9.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles19%—
DTBench93.6%—
LMCA45.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench55.6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.76—

Math GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 28.8 (#223)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Math14821072
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions67.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.4%—
ProofBench35%—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
GPQA Diamond91.9%—
SimpleQA Verified34.2%—
LMArena Expert1484—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 28.9 (#265)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Non-English14591064
LMArena Chinese1518—
LMArena French1476—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1451—
LMArena Korean1445—
LMArena Russian1467—
LMArena Spanish1477—

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 54.5 (#274)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Instruction Following14651061

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 30.4 (#283)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Longer Query1479998

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20), Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat: 31.8 (#278)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-5.2Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat
LMArena Text14701098
LMArena Creative Writing14651091
LMArena Multi-Turn14681058
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1757—
EQ-Bench 41222—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.2 better than Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is GLM-5.2 or Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.2 and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.2 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Llama2 70b Steerlm Chat has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper