# GLM-4.6V vs Llama 2-7B

> GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-6v-vs-llama-2-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6V leads 56.6 to 28.0.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 29.1 |
| Rank | 137 | 317 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
- Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1002 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
- Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1009 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 99.06 |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |

## Math

- GLM-4.6V: —
- Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1042 |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1036 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| MMLU | — | 45.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
- Llama 2-7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
- Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 973 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 995 |
| LMArena French | — | 970 |
| LMArena German | — | 978 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1007 |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
- Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1006 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 999 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1029 |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.6V better than Llama 2-7B?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.6V or Llama 2-7B better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and Llama 2-7B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.