# Gemma 2 9B vs GLM-4.6

> GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-glm-4-6
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6 leads 40.2 to 9.7.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 41.4 |
| Rank | 341 | 135 |
| Context | — | 205K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304)
- GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1449 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 55.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1340 |
| SciCode | — | 38.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 340.82 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 9B: —
- GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 24.5% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 72.4% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309)
- GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1440 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 47.4% |
| CritPt | — | 1.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318)
- GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1432 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 3.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305)
- GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1431 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.5% |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238)
- GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1426 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1499 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | 1459 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | 1393 |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1419 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1436 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269)
- GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1410 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233)
- GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1422 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281)
- GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1440 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1411 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | 1411 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1427 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or GLM-4.6 better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and GLM-4.6 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6 has 29.