# GLM-4.7-Flash vs Llama 2-7B

> GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-llama-2-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 46.8 to 23.9.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.4 | 28.6 |
| Rank | 175 | 315 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.06 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.0 (#133)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.7 (#302)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1002 |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.2 (#224)
- Llama 2-7B: 15.1 (#309)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1009 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 98.54 |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |

## Math

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 34.4 (#159)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#231)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1354 | 1042 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.4 (#177)
- Llama 2-7B: 27.7 (#243)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1036 |
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| MMLU | — | 45.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |

## Multimodal

- GLM-4.7-Flash: —
- Llama 2-7B: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.8 (#152)
- Llama 2-7B: 23.9 (#288)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 973 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | 969 |
| LMArena German | 1336 | 978 |
| LMArena Russian | 1333 | 995 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1351 | 1007 |
| LMArena Korean | 1284 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.3 (#162)
- Llama 2-7B: 51.0 (#293)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1006 |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#143)
- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#282)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 999 |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.7 (#206)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.1 (#293)

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1029 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than Llama 2-7B?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GLM-4.7-Flash or Llama 2-7B better for coding?

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and Llama 2-7B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.