# Gemma 2B vs GLM-5.1

> GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-glm-5-1
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.1 leads 66.9 to 24.0.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 47.8 |
| Rank | 307 | 59 |
| Context | — | 200K |
| Input $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | — | $4.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1485 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1508 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 57.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 149.84 |
| SimpleBench | — | 55.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1476 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1515 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1454 |
| LMArena French | — | 1474 |
| LMArena German | — | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1418 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1469 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1451 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1466 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1453 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1472 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2B or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GLM-5.1 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.