# Gemma 2B vs GLM-5

> GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-glm-5
- 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 in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-5 leads 66.0 to 24.0.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 46.1 |
| Rank | 307 | 66 |
| Context | — | 205K |
| Input $/M | — | $1 |
| Output $/M | — | $3.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- GLM-5: 49.0 (#52)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1461 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 72.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 72.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1434 |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 69.7% |
| WeirdML | — | 48.2% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 765.62 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5: 31.1 (#71)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 52.4% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 82.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 73.7% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 86.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,432 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- GLM-5: 27.6 (#116)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1452 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 145.83 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 4.9% |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 75% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 44.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 10% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 61 |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- GLM-5: 46.4 (#71)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1440 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 65.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 80% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 16.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- GLM-5: 52.3 (#64)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1454 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- GLM-5: 53.7 (#58)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1511 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1436 |
| LMArena French | — | 1455 |
| LMArena German | — | 1445 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1416 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1454 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- GLM-5: 75.2 (#67)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1428 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- GLM-5: 44.7 (#60)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1446 |
| CL-bench | — | 18.7% |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- GLM-5: 66.0 (#38)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GLM-5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1446 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1601 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than GLM-5?

GLM-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2B or GLM-5 better for coding?

GLM-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.0 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GLM-5 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5 has 45.