# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs GLM-4.6V

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-glm-4-6v
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in long context, where GLM-4.6V leads 41.3 to 29.1.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 40.9 |
| Rank | 171 | 133 |
| Context | — | 128K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.90 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
- GLM-4.6V: 40.2 (#128)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1390 |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
- GLM-4.6V: 26.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1368 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
- GLM-4.6V: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
- GLM-4.6V: 37.4 (#148)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1372 |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- GLM-4.6V: 34.2 (#83)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- GLM-4.6V: 48.8 (#135)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1426 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1341 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
- GLM-4.6V: 71.6 (#145)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1351 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#138)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
- GLM-4.6V: 56.8 (#132)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1359 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or GLM-4.6V better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 37.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and GLM-4.6V share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.