# Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs GLM-5.1

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-flash-vs-glm-5-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 39.1 to 15.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 57.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 93.3% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 47.8 |
| Rank | 228 | 59 |
| Context | — | 200K |
| Input $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | — | $4.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315)
- GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 25.8% | 57.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1485 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1508 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92)
- GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318)
- GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | 55.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 149.84 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146)
- GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213)
- GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | 89.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1476 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79)
- GLM-5.1: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149)
- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1515 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | 1474 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1469 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97)
- GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1451 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203)
- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1466 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190)
- GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1453 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | 1592 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1472 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and GLM-5.1 share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.