# Gemma 2B vs GLM-5.3-Flash

> GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-glm-5-3-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 65.3 to 24.0.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 51.8 |
| Rank | 307 | 41 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.15 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.50 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1508 |
| DeepSWE | — | 63.4% |
| FrontierCode | — | 31.8% |
| CursorBench | — | 36.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1609 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 18.1% |
| SciCode | — | 51.6% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 303.55 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.8% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1491 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 151.88 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 65.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 91% |
| CritPt | — | 15.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 14% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1500 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 55.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.9% |
| ProofBench | — | 21% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1513 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1296 |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1462 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1527 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | — | 1496 |
| LMArena German | — | 1470 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1429 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1446 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1471 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1478 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1482 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1442 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1467 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-5.3-Flash?

GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2B or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GLM-5.3-Flash share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 40.