# Gemma 2 9B vs GLM-4.6V

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6V in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.6V leads 38.0 to 9.7.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 41.3 |
| Rank | 341 | 137 |
| Context | — | 128K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.90 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304)
- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1390 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309)
- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1368 |
| 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-4.6V: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305)
- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1371 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 2 9B: —
- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238)
- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1340 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena German | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269)
- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1352 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233)
- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281)
- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1360 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |

## FAQ

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

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.