# Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-5.2

> GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-4-31b-it-vs-glm-5-2
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 31

## Summary

- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.2 leads 57.1 to 37.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Surface Evolver Bench: 30.6% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 55.6% for GLM-5.2.
- Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.09 / $0.34 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 43.2 | 50.9 |
| Rank | 85 | 38 |
| Context | 262K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.09 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $0.34 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.9 (#98)
- GLM-5.2: 50.9 (#37)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1364 | 1604 |
| SciCode | 43.4% | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1484 |
| ALE-Bench | 925.5 | 1,047 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 4 31B IT: —
- GLM-5.2: 31.6 (#63)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 26.4 (#119)
- GLM-5.2: 42.1 (#46)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 63.5% | 62.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 70.6% | 74.3% |
| CritPt | 1.4% | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1448 | 1480 |
| DTBench | 82.7% | 93.6% |
| LMCA | 39.3% | 45.8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 30.6% | 55.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.74 | 151.76 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 22.8% |
| SimpleBench | — | 58.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 77% |
| Thematic Generalization | 53% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |

## Math

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.3 (#72)
- GLM-5.2: 55.4 (#35)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1464 | 1482 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#141)
- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#36)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 75.8% | 91.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 10.4% | 34.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1465 | 1484 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.0 (#32)
- GLM-5.2: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1278 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1425 | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 54.0 (#52)
- GLM-5.2: 56.0 (#25)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1478 | 1518 |
| LMArena French | 1436 | 1476 |
| LMArena Russian | 1462 | 1467 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | — | 1470 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1445 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.6 (#58)
- GLM-5.2: 77.1 (#32)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1433 | 1465 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#67)
- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1446 | 1479 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.7 (#92)
- GLM-5.2: 70.7 (#20)

| Benchmark | Gemma 4 31B IT | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1416 | 1465 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1368 | 1757 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1120 | 1222 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1452 | 1468 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 4 31B IT better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 31B IT or GLM-5.2?

Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.09 per million input tokens and $0.34 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Is Gemma 4 31B IT or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.9 versus 41.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 31B IT and GLM-5.2 share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 31B IT has 35 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 50.